Native American Representation in Museums:
A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Effects of Cultural Resource
Laws
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Misty Thorsgard for the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies in
Anthropology, Applied Anthropology, and Art presented on December 12, 2006.
Title: Native American Representation in Museums: A Cross Cultural Comparison
of the Effects of Cultural Resources Laws.
Abstract approved:
___________________________________________________________________
Deanna M. Kingston
The image of Native Americans in the United States has changed through
the passage of time. Part of this change is directly related to the representation of
their cultures in a museum setting and the inception of cultural resource laws that
govern them. This research looks at four museums, two in the United States and
two in the United Kingdom, and compares their representation of Native
Americans. Unlike museums in the United States, museums in the United Kingdom
do not have to comply with laws that protect source communities. A source
community is defined as the original group that an object found in a museum
setting originates. Laws like the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (1990) have shaped the relationship between museums and Native
Americans in the United States. It has fostered a deeper understanding of Native
American worldviews in American museum displays. This research demonstrates
how American museums have changed the way they plan for and create displays
about Native Americans because of cultural resource laws. This research reveals
three movements in the United States that have occurred, due in part to cultural
resource laws. First, the dichotomy between museums’ relationship to their visitors
in comparison to their responsibilities to source communities and how this has
shifted; second, funding and the power struggle it has created in museums. Third,
the issue of repatriation of objects, both nationally and internationally, due to the
variety of opinions that surround this topic; and how this demonstrates a better
working relationship with Native Americans in the United States, and is cause for
great strife for the United Kingdom and other countries. These three illuminate the
uneven relationship between museums and Native Americans and how cultural
resource laws in the United States have begun to alter this relationship. NAGPRA
has helped to reestablish Native Americans’ legal authority over their culture in the
United States.
© Copyright by Misty Thorsgard
December 12, 2006
All Rights Reserved
Native American Representation in Museums:
A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Effects of Cultural Resources Laws
by
Misty Thorsgard
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies
Presented December 12, 2006
Commencement June 2007
Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies thesis of Misty Thorsgard presented on
December 12, 2006.
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Anthropology
Committee member, representing Applied Anthropology
Committee Member, representing Art
Chair of the Department of Anthropology
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon
State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to
any reader upon request.
Misty Thorsgard, Author
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express sincere appreciation to my family, who always believed in
me, and to all the museums that allowed me to include them in this research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Setting: .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Defining the Problem:................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Theory Framework: ...................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Overview of Methods: ................................................................................................ 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review............................................................................................ 15
2.1 Cultural Resource Laws: the United Kingdom and the United States........................ 15
2.2 International Cultural Heritage Laws: ........................................................................ 16
2.2.1 The Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict (Hague) (1954)................................................................................................ 17
2.2.2 The Convention of the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,
Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO) (1970)............... 17
2.2.3 The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (1972) ............................................................................................................. 19
2.2.4 The UNIDROIT Convention (1995).................................................................... 19
2.2.5 Summary of International Laws........................................................................... 19
2.3 Cultural Resource Laws in the United Kingdom:....................................................... 20
2.3.1 Historical Overview ............................................................................................. 20
2.3.2 Export and Customs Powers Act (1939).............................................................. 21
2.3.3 British Museum Act (1963) ................................................................................. 21
2.4 Historical Overview of Native American interactions with the United States and
cultural resource laws: ...................................................................................................... 22
2.4.1 Sovereignty .......................................................................................................... 23
2.4.2 Removal to Termination 1819-1960.................................................................... 23
2.4.3 American Antiquities Act (1906)......................................................................... 25
2.4.4 Native American Activism .................................................................................. 27
2.4.5 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)................................................. 27
2.4.6 Federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act 1990: ............................................................ 28
2.4.7 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990) .. 31
2.4.8 Summary of United State Laws ........................................................................... 32
2.5 Native American Implementation of Cultural Resource Laws:.................................. 33
2.6 Summary:.................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter 3: Methods and Research ................................................................................... 36
3.1 Overview:.................................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Examination of displays:............................................................................................. 37
3.3 Museum Publications:................................................................................................. 39
3.4 Interviews:................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 43
4.1 Overview:.................................................................................................................... 43
4.2 United Kingdom: ........................................................................................................ 43
4.2.1 The British Museum: ........................................................................................... 43
4.2.1.1 Displays: ....................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1.2 Museum Publications:................................................................................... 47
4.2.1.3 Interview: ...................................................................................................... 51
4.2.2 The American Museum of Britain: ...................................................................... 53
4.2.2.1 Displays: ....................................................................................................... 54
4.2.2.2 Museum Publications:................................................................................... 57
4.2.2.3 Interview: ...................................................................................................... 59
4.3 United States: .............................................................................................................. 61
4.3.1 The Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture: .......................................... 61
4.3.1.1 Displays: ....................................................................................................... 62
4.3.1.2 Museum Publications:................................................................................... 64
4.3.1.3 Interview: ...................................................................................................... 67
4.3.2 Maryhill Museum of Art:..................................................................................... 67
4.3.2.1 Displays: ....................................................................................................... 68
4.3.2.2 Museum Publications:................................................................................... 69
4.3.2.3 Interviews:..................................................................................................... 71
4.4 Summary of Results.................................................................................................... 73
4.4.1 The British Museum ............................................................................................ 73
4.4.2 The American Museum of Britain ....................................................................... 75
4.4.3 The Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture ........................................... 76
4.4.4 The Maryhill Museum of Art............................................................................... 77
4.5 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................. 78
Chapter 5: Conclusion....................................................................................................... 80
5.1 Visitors and the Represented (A Discourse in Power): .............................................. 81
5.1.1 The Visitor: .......................................................................................................... 82
5.1.2 The Represented: ................................................................................................. 86
5.2 Funding: ...................................................................................................................... 89
5.2.1 United State Museums: ........................................................................................ 90
5.2.2 United Kingdom Museums:................................................................................. 90
5.3 Repatriation and the Preservers of World Culture:..................................................... 91
5.4 Conclusion: ................................................................................................................. 95
Native American Representation in Museums:
A Cross Cultural Comparison of the Effects of Cultural
Resources Laws on the Representation of Native Americans
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Setting:
My research into the representation of Native Americans in museums began
during my undergraduate education. As a history major, I wanted to connect a human
element to what seemed like dry, factual information of a bygone era. Volunteering as a
museum docent in the San Diego Museum of Man, I gained my first encounter with a
museum. It became my first glance into an institution where opinions were voiced and
information was brought to the public. As a docent you are expected to facilitate the
learning process, answer questions, and act as a police officer. I did all of these things,
but I also watched and listened to the visitors and staff. Shortly after starting my position
at the museum I picked up a second major in Anthropology. I continued to volunteer in
several museums and learned about the important role they play in the education of the
general public.
At the same time, I became deeply involved in my husband’s Native American
culture. After having our first daughter, my husband’s culture came to me in the form of
a mother-in-law. She introduced me to ‘women’s roles’ and told me the things that only
2
I could teach my daughter. I became an insider and an outsider. Spradley describes this
position as a form of ‘participant observation’ (1980). I am privy to knowledge and
information that outsiders might not acquire, and yet, I am rarely allowed to voice my
own opinion. I have learned vast amounts of information about my husband’s culture
through my interactions with his family.
I continued my museum education while working at a small historical society the
senior year of my undergraduate degree. The small historical society and museum prided
itself in ‘telling the true history’ of the area, but that truth was an edited version of
history. They were certainly interested and proud to tell the public about their pioneer
and Euro-American heritage. But, they omitted the area’s deep connection to the Native
American and Asian communities, both of which played important roles in shaping the
history of the area. I soon realized that this small museum was not the exception and that
many small museums used an edited version of their history. They felt it was easier to
develop a truth that they felt comfortable discussing rather than telling of a past that they
weren’t proud of. Museums are the site of collective memory and each party involved
has a different perception of the truth. The question is how to tell the most accurate truth
(Zolbery 1995:71).
I spent much of my time at this small historical society developing a different
version of the area’s history, one that told of the Native Americans who had also lived
there. To tell this story I had to draw upon a much larger state funded museum. At this
museum, I saw yet another version of the truth; this version displayed the many lines of
regional history. The museum worked closely with ‘source communities’ that had
3
contributed objects to the museum’s collection. Several Native American tribes were
among the groups that had items at the museum. I saw first hand the way a museum
could work with a community they represented and how they worked to tell the most
accurate truth possible.
I learned many skills in my experiences with the two museums that year. The
most influential piece of information was the way cultural resource laws worked inside of
museums. I began to understand how these laws, particularly the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), influenced a great deal of events
inside some museums. The laws shaped the museum’s interaction with other groups.
Laura Peers explained this interaction between Nave Americans, museums, and cultural
resource laws:
“Museums have proved to be acceptable mechanisms for post-colonial
purposes. Mainstream museums, through working with indigenous peoples, have
learned to understand ethnographic collections as records of human relationships
within native cultures and between native and non-native groups and are being
transformed in the process. Indigenous peoples have become museum-literate
both in the sense of learning to negotiate with colonial institutions-NAGPRA has
given Native Americans new tools of language and procedure and the sense of
adapting museums to their own purposes of cultural revitalization, selfidentification, and self determination in a complex, increasingly urban and global
world” (Peers 2003:25).
Based on her comment, I wanted to know just how influential these laws were in shaping
museums’ views, interactions, and representation of Native Americans. This quest
eventually became the research project for my graduate degree, and I developed a thesis
that would pair my understanding of Native American communities and my love of
museums.
4
1.2 Defining the Problem:
The purpose of this project is to determine how Native Americans are represented
in American museums and how closely this representation is tied to the inception of
cultural resource laws. The interaction between Native Americans and museums has
changed through time. The question that this research seeks to answer is whether this
shift is related to the inception of cultural resource laws, and if it is, what part does it
play? I will explore the impact of these laws by comparing United States museums with
international museums in terms of how they represent Native Americans. This will help
determine if cultural resource laws in the United States do influence the way Native
Americans are represented. Not only will this effort benefit Native Americans, but it will
also have the potential to influence other indigenous groups and how their stories are
told.
There are international laws and resolutions, such as the UNIDROIT Convention
and the United Nations Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage, which deals with artifacts from other countries. These laws and
resolutions only apply to those collections that were gathered after the inception date of
the laws or conventions. Another problem arises when countries choose not to ratify
resolutions or laws, making them virtually worthless. It makes the laws ineffective
because countries then have a choice to follow the laws or only follow them to a lesser
degree. Lastly, international laws are often set up to protect countries, not groups of
people, such as Native Americans. In comparison, domestic cultural resource laws are in
place to protect a wide array of cultural resources.
5
I chose this research because of the assumed impact that the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has had on the representation of Native
Americans in museums in the United States. By looking at how cultural resource laws are
applied in different countries, I hope to ascertain how these laws change the
representation and interpretation of indigenous cultures. This study compared four
museums in two countries, two in the United States and two in the United Kingdom.
Justification of using the United States and the United Kingdom resulted from the both
being similar in their collections of Native American artifacts, but different in their laws
and funding. This allowed me to compare and analyze the effect that laws and funding
have on the representation of Native Americans.
The United Kingdom has a large collection of Native American artifacts that
currently reside in British museums. Other cultural similarities to the United States
include a difficult past interacting with Native Americans, but both countries work to
represent Native Americans in a seemingly accurate way. In the United Kingdom there
are minimal laws that are used to protect cultural heritage in contrast to the United States
that is under the jurisdiction of NAGPRA and other cultural resource laws. The result is
a significant difference between the laws in the United States and those found in the
United Kingdom. For example, American laws such as NAGPRA apply to any agency
receiving federal funding; this prevents them from not complying. Laws that are set up in
the international communities are merely suggestions and hold little weight.
American museums that receive federal funding are required to comply with
cultural heritage laws, such as the NAGPRA. NAGPRA requires museums to inventory
6
their collections and determine if they have any Native American items. These
inventories are then given to associated tribes and it is their responsibility to make claims
to such items if they feel that they are culturally affiliated to those human remains,
associated funerary objects, sacred objects or objects of cultural patrimony in the
inventory. This gives Native Americans the power to reclaim items once lost to them
(NAGPRA 1994). In contrast to the United States, British museums do not have such
laws.
It is important to examine issues such as Native American representation in
museums in an applied anthropological setting. Applied anthropology seeks to answer
difficult cultural problems using theoretical and methodological tools to answer issues
such as this. Applied anthropology, unlike strict academic anthropology, works with
communities to identify and solve difficult questions that face them. It also attempts to
connect local issues to larger societal and global issues. Anthropology is moving toward
a more ‘moral based’ model, where “the primary purpose of this model is to identify what
is good and what is bad” instead of an ‘objective’ model where an observation is
supposedly judgment free (D’Andrade 1995:609).
True objectivity is difficult to accomplish and the shift to a moral model attempts
to deal with the natural human aspect associated with research, in particular, that all
humans are biased and ethnocentric. No one can completely remove him or herself or be
totally rid of their own culture when doing research, and each culture has its own selfimposed bias. The moral model gives a way for the anthropological research to correct
some of the past wrong doings. Roy D’Andrade suggests that this might be done “by
7
giving voice to those who resist oppression [or], at least identify the oppression and the
oppressors (D’Andrade 1995:611). Applied anthropology seeks to do these things. Like
applied anthropology, this research strives to demonstrate the benefits of working with
source communities to develop a more holistic view of their cultures in museum; this can
be achieved through the inception of more cultural resource laws both domestically and
internationally.
The groups that are included in this research are the museum community, Native
Americans, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The museum community will
benefit from the results of this work through the potential growth in understanding of
various viewpoints. Not only will British museums gain an understanding of the
importance of direct contact with Native peoples but American museums can begin to
evaluate their relationship with Native communities and the effectiveness of those
relationships. This research has the potential to lead to a deeper understanding of how
different variables, such as laws and communication between Natives and those who
represent them, as well as affect a museum’s ability to create accurate representations.
1.3 Theory Framework:
Theoretically, I draw upon several approaches that shape my research. The first is
structuralism as outlined by Claude Levi-Strauss. He believed that while cultures are
different on the outside, they are “products of underlying universal patterns of thought”
(McGee 2003:345). Structuralism is a Western creation, and museums were historically
created under these structuralized ideals, such as universalism and binary opposites.
8
Structuralism is founded on the need to give order, to categorize, and to define the world.
It is difficult to fit any culture into defined parameters; culture is continually changing
and it is problematic to believe that there is a universal pattern of thought that propagated
the varieties of culture.
Structuralism states that it is natural for humans to create ‘binary oppositions’ to
understand and give meaning to their way of life. By breaking down human thought into
root binary oppositions, one can understand the source of all human interactions (McGee
2003:346). Unlike Levi-Strauss who would say that this concept functions in all
societies, I believe that this idea is predominately a function of Western society.
Westerners tend to think of things in terms of good or evil, black or white, all or nothing;
we think in absolutes and truths (Levi-Strauss 1963:364). In regard to this research,
museums try to classify objects into certain categories, like what is considered sacred and
what is not. George Horse Capture once commented when asked what Native Americans
consider sacred he stated that, “sacredness in the Indian world is like the early morning
dew, it falls over everything. Nothing is exempt, everything is sacred” (2003:73). Native
American’s worldview is much more holistic than the Western world recognizes.
Binary oppositions and how they play a role in the representation of Native
Americans inside a museum, is important to understand. Binary oppositions that play out
in museum displays are seen when one looks at how those who are in power (museum
officials) act toward those who are not in power in this case, Native Americans.
Typically museum officials are not Native American, and they take the authority of
interpretation out of the control of Native Americans.
9
Levi-Strauss also talks about Universalism, or ideas that unite all cultures. Even
though there are certain themes that every culture is concerned with such as food, shelter,
and family, each culture has unique characteristics that play a role in who they are, and
by simply looking at cultures in universals it can cause great harm rather than fostering
deeper levels of understanding. By focusing on only the cultural similarities, we miss out
on the important cultural nuances.
Many museums have colonialist histories that were created to explain European
interactions with other cultures. In order for those museums to develop beyond their
current role in society, they have to evolve past their role as preservationists (Nicks
2003:21). Museum need to serve a variety of communities through education,
communication, and facilitation of greater cultural understandings. Museums will always
have some form of order and structure, which is deeply ingrained in the institution itself
(Levi-Strauss 1945:364). The museum, like structuralism, compartmentalizes people into
topics such as economics, religion, politics, language, art, etc… and they try to explain
how each of these systems feed into the next. This is seen when museums select a few
artifacts to explain an entire culture. Museums are now reinventing themselves to
function in a post-modernist world where each voice involved is a valid one and should
be heard.
Another theory I draw upon in my research is that of symbolic anthropology. We
use symbols in order to interpret events that happen during our lives. The symbols that
are created influence the way people in a given culture think about their world. Symbols
are then used to communicate understanding to others within that culture. I drew
10
primarily upon the symbolic anthropology of Victor Turner. He believes that one must
seek the understanding of those within the culture in order to understand the cultural
context in which the symbol was created (Turner 1967:536). One must study the way in
which people create meaning in their lives in order to represent their culture accurately.
Humans create their reality by interpreting events in their own cultural past and
portray that meaning through cultural symbols, which may take the form of material
goods. Correct interpretations of material goods require an insider’s perspective to ensure
proper representation. It is important to ask what kind of meanings are being represented
and imposed on Native Americans by non-native curators. Curators are choosing objects
that will symbolize Native American culture and there is no regulation, specifically in
Europe, as to the types of objects used to represent that culture.
I focused my research on the way in which British museum officials looked at
Native Americans to determine what symbols they use to represent Native American
cultures. I also looked at how museum officials in the United States used symbols to
represent Native American culture and if these symbols are different because of their
interactions with Native Americans.
Keensing also notes that using Native Americans as informants or curators can
also be problematic because of their ‘positionality’ within their own society.
‘Positionality’ is the status that any one person holds within a culture. The position that
an individual holds in a society determines their understanding of their culture and also
reflects how much cultural information is accessible to them. For example, a religious
leader will have a very different view of cultural meaning than a teacher. Keensing points
11
out that “…only experts … make the full panoply of connections in the symbolic system,
who see global patterning where others see only parts and surfaces” (1987:161). If we ask
Native American informants to choose symbols, in the form of objects that convey their
cultural understanding, we are asking them to define their cultural knowledge in terms of
their particular worldview. One Native American informant might not have the same
knowledge as another Native American informant, and opinions can also vary from one
person to the next. Ideally, each tribe would have a group of informants who could then
advise museums about the proper way to display their culture.
There are many complexities when interpreting symbolic meaning. It is difficult
to expect someone working outside of the cultural context to begin to understand or
interpret meaning without help from a group of informants. As such, museum officials
should work closely with Native informants to attempt to understand the symbols that
will be chosen to convey the meaning of their culture. The capacity to which museums
develop a working relationship with Native Americans will depend on many factors such
as accessibility to information, funding, cross cultural communication, etc.
When feasible, museums should use Native American informants to interpret their
own symbols. This insures that we do not limit ourselves from gaining a deeper
understanding of their worldview, thereby increasing our chances of portraying Native
Americans accurately. However it is proposed that not only the physical distance, but the
cultural separation of Native American society from British society that is problematic in
their attempts to accurately represent Native Americans. This research will document that
the physical separation from Native Americans and the lack of cultural resource laws
12
have a negative influence on how museums in the United Kingdom portray Native
Americans.
I am also deeply influenced by postmodernist theory, particularly by the writings
of Foucault.
“Foucault’s idea is that every mode of thinking involves implicit rules
(maybe not even recognized by those following them) that materially restrict the
range of thought. If we can uncover these rules, we will be able to see how an
apparently arbitrary constraint actually makes total sense in the framework
defined by those rules” (Gutting 2005:32-33).
He believes that power relationships are deeply ingrained in society and are imposed on
others through the way that the dominating class defines ‘normal’. They “preserve their
power through mechanisms of control such as prisons, hospitals, asylums, and museums”
(Ericksons 2003:158). Society defines itself by identifying the ‘other’, the act of
defining people allows for a power relationship to occur. In a museum, this is seen in
displays about Native Americans. Information is presented as ‘truth’ with no
consideration given to the collector’s cultural agenda. He discusses this in his work, ‘The
History of Madness’:
“The results of examination are recorded in documents that provide
detailed information about the individuals examined and allow power systems to
control them (for example absentee records for schools, patients’ charts in
hospitals). On the basis of these records, those in control can formulate
categories, averages, and norms that are in turn a basis for knowledge” (Gutting
2005:86).
This occurs in museums when they classify and analyze human culture into a manageable
package. That package is then placed on display to tell museum visitors about another
culture.
13
A major limitation of postmodernism is that ethnography tends to show the ‘truth’
from the researcher’s point of view and truth is relative to the person imposing it
(Erickson & Murphy 2003:155-158). Museum displays are another form of ethnography,
and like ethnography, museum displays are interpretations imposed on another culture.
Anthropology is not a strict empirical science in which there are rules that apply all of the
time. The act of collecting ethnographic data is subjective and the same is true when
conducting research to create displays in museums (Rosaldo 1989:580-82). My decision
to interview some of the museum officials and not all of them may have caused a bias in
my findings. Some museums choose to work with Native Americans at varying degrees,
and others do not, resulting in multiple interpretations of their culture. Hermeneuticist
Hans-Georg Gadamer said, that “we cannot separate our ways of knowing from our
language and our culture, it is impossible for us to interpret the world in a truly detached,
objective manner” (McGee 2003:575).
1.4 Overview of Methods:
In order to determine the extent to which Native American representation in
museums is influenced by cultural resource laws, certain methods were utilized. Analysis
of the representation of Native Americans was accomplished in a three-part process. This
process was replicated at two museums in the United Kingdom and two in the United
States. In the first part of the process I examined all of the museum displays dealing with
Native Americans in the museums that I worked in, including The British Museum, the
American Museum of Britain, the Maryhill Museum of Art, and The Burke Museum of
14
Natural History and Culture. Next, I conducted interviews with a museum official at three
of the museums. Lastly, I examined each museum’s publications that discussed Native
Americans.
Through these methods I will show how the lack of cultural resource laws
combined with the distance separating Natives from European countries play into the way
Native Americans are represented in the United Kingdom. It will also shed light on how
museums in the United States are influenced by cultural resource laws.
In chapter two I examine the history of Native American representation in
museums in the United States and how changes in laws have shifted the interaction
between Native Americans and museums. In addition, I analyze international laws that
are in place to protect cultural resources. In chapter three, I explain the methods used
during this research, and the reasons why those methods were chosen over others. In
chapter four, I discuss the results of the research. Chapter five is where I draw
conclusions from the previous chapters and offer suggestions for further study.
15
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Cultural Resource Laws: the United Kingdom and the United States
The laws in the United Kingdom and the United States that regulate cultural
resources are different from each other. Laws in the United Kingdom are referred to as
cultural heritage laws; in the United States, they are referred to as cultural resource laws.
Cultural heritage laws are implemented to protect the heritage of nation-states and not the
cultural resources of individual cultural groups. There are a number of cultural heritage
laws in the international community, but most of the large countries refuse to partake in
the implementation and enforcement of the laws, which makes these laws unsuccessful.
International cultural heritage laws are generally enacted to protect organizations, such as
museum and individual collectors. The laws give little regard to non-nation states, such
as indigenous groups.
Much is written about the creation of cultural resources laws in the United States
and the struggles of Native Americans to gain the passage of those laws. The return of
cultural items on an international level and the passage of international laws regarding
these cultural items are important. A large amount of research has been conducted to
discus the ramification of colonialism on Native American culture. However, there is a
lack of current research on whether or not the passage of cultural resource laws in the
United States influences the exhibition of Native American culture. If there is a positive
16
impact, exploration of new laws on an international level that would help in the
representation of Native Americans by the international museum community.
In the following section I review the literature of some of the major findings on
these subjects. I first examine the extent and types of cultural heritage laws that are
found in the international arena and note whether the United States or the United
Kingdom have ratified these laws. I then discuss the cultural resource laws in the United
Kingdom and current collecting trends practiced by museums in that country. After
establishing the international laws and those in the United Kingdom I then compare them
to the cultural resource laws in the United States. I first look at the historical events in
the United States, including trends and the Indian art market that has shaped the creation
of cultural resource laws. I then review the cultural resource laws that are currently in
practice in the United States. To conclude I then explore the Native American views on
the implementation of these laws and their views on museum representation of their
culture.
2.2 International Cultural Heritage Laws:
The following are some of the important international laws, which all originated
in the United Nations in some form or another. These laws have taken shape over the
years to protect cultural heritage on a more global level. Wherever possible I have
indicated whether the United Kingdom or the United States has ratified the law.
17
2.2.1 The Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict (Hague) (1954)
The Hague Convention was created to protect museums and libraries as well as
movable cultural items that are endangered during an armed conflict (Hague Convention
1954). This law makes it illegal for countries to exploit the cultural resources of another
country that they occupy during a time of war. If items are removed during the
occupation, they are subject to return after the conflict to the country of origin. It was the
first international effort to protect cultural property (Greenfield 1989:187). By March
1993, eighty-three countries ratified the convention and Protocol. The United States and
the United Kingdom are not party to this protocol.
2.2.2 The Convention of the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,
Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (UNESCO) (1970)
The UNESCO convention made the attempt to address problems associated with
the removal of cultural property from a country that was previously a colony and to stop
the illegal trade of these items (Greenfield 1996:185). It states, “…a cultural object which
has been unlawfully excavated or lawfully excavated but unlawfully retained shall be
considered stolen, when consistent with the law of the state were the excavation took
place” (Schneider 1995:6). The convention makes suggestions of a preferred set of
actions that pertain to items that were previously removed from another country by a
colonizing force. For example, it states that the General Conference should have the
opportunity to gain the return of such items that were previously removed. However, it
18
does not require a country to return items found to be protected under this law. The
removal of items from a country that was once a colony posed a serious problem for the
implementation of this international law, because the law is not retroactive.
“From the earliest times, many cultures have been the victims of
systematic exploitation. This was true of ancient Egypt and of the pre-Colombian
American civilizations, and more recently those of Africa and Asia… Thus the
great museums and private collections of Western world are replete with treasures
acquired in circumstances of doubtful legality or of undoubted illegality and the
hemorrhage continues to this day” (Schneider 1995:1).
As Schneider points out, many museum collections came from questionable backgrounds,
and the argument that museums are preserving the global heritage of the world is no
longer a valid argument.
Illegal exportation of cultural property is also addressed in this convention. No
matter what laws are in place, illegal trade still exists today (Shneider 1995:2). Without
diligence and stricter international laws, there is little that can be done to stop the trade of
cultural property.
The Convention was not without opposition, particularly because ‘cultural
property’ was so vaguely defined that many countries were reluctant to participate. The
United States became a party to this convention in 1983 and the United Kingdom in
2002, with the understanding that the stipulations of the convention would not be
retroactive.
19
2.2.3 The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (1972)
This convention sought to make each signing member responsible for preserving
cultural heritage that existed in their own country. Cultural heritage was defined as
monuments, buildings and sites that were man-made or a combination of man-made and
natural. This act specifically deals with non-moveable objects. Each state was asked to
provide a list of sites to the World Heritage Committee (Unesco 1972). The United
Kingdom became a party to this convention in 1984 (Greenfield 1989:107). I was not
able to ascertain if the United States is a party to this convention.
2.2.4 The UNIDROIT Convention (1995)
This convention made provisions for the return of cultural objects between two
contract states or states that have signed on to the convention. The convention is not
retroactive. The convention covers stolen or illegally excavated objects that can be
claimed legally by another state. It also made provisions for the return of objects exported
illegally. Contracting states have a fifty-year window in which to make claims on objects.
To this date neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are participating states.
This convention is set up to facilitate contracting states in communication, but has no
provisions for those states that break the sanctions.
2.2.5 Summary of International Laws
As stated before, laws on an international level are used to protect organizations
and countries. They are of little use to indigenous communities that are governed under
20
the umbrella of nation-states. Objects have become a symbol of power and status.
Western countries, which were the original oppressors, continue to define indigenous
communities inside of their museums, forcing them into conformity.
2.3 Cultural Resource Laws in the United Kingdom:
2.3.1 Historical Overview
In the 18th century, the rise of the Enlightenment period drove socialists to impose
scientific methods on their practices (Erickson & Murphy 2003:37-39). They believed
that scientific methodology could be imposed on human culture, and like scientists they
sought to gather information about their subjects. The drive to gather and document large
quantities of objects that they felt were disappearing was much like that of the rest of the
Western World, and they thought that this information might hold the key to unlocking
modern civilization (Erickson & Murphy 2003:39).
“The United Kingdom stands out as a principal holder of some of the
major cultural treasures of the world, primarily because of her colonial history,
although not all the treasures were acquired as a direct result of this. Many were
acquired simply as the result of long-distance archaeological raids and these were
not always carried out by archaeologists” (Greenfield 1989:91).
This mode of collecting brought about the dislocation of vast amounts of cultural items,
as different Western powers raced against each other to gather and steal items from third
world countries. The collection of cultural items became a status symbol for many
countries.
The United Kingdom is the biggest government that opposes international cultural
heritage laws, especially with regard to implementing these existing laws in their own
21
country and in the creation of new laws. The English government believes that it plays an
important role in preserving the world’s cultural heritage (Greenfield 1995:105). This
idea is directly related to their country’s residual ideals of colonial superiority. There are
a few laws that are enacted in the United Kingdom that protect their own cultural
heritage. However, it does not grant the same protection to other countries or nations and
their cultural items, like the cultural resource laws in the United States. The first of these
laws enacted is the Export and Customs Power Act.
2.3.2 Export and Customs Powers Act (1939)
This act gave the government of the United Kingdom the power to stop the
exportation of any item from their own culture that is more than fifty years old at the time
of exportation. A board of directors would review the exportation and rule on its
importance to the heritage of the United Kingdom (Greenfield 1989:110). An item is only
exported if it is less than fifty years old and the item is not judged to be a historical or
national treasure after a review. This law is governed by a six-man board of directors
who have the right to advise the Arts Minister to withhold an exporting license.
2.3.3 British Museum Act (1963)
This Act was passed in order to establish a museum to house the collection of Sir
Hans Sloan, who was a “physician, a naturalist and an antiquarian” (Wilson 1989:13).
The Act made provisions as to how the museum would be managed. One of the most
important things to note is that this act makes it virtually impossible for items that have
been accessioned into a collection to be de-accessioned. There are three situations in
22
which an object can be de-accessioned from the collection: if the object is a duplicate; if
the object was made before 1850; or, if the object is a “copy made by photography or a
process akin to photography”. In all of these situations the objects must be deemed “unfit
to be retained in the collection of the Museum and can be disposed of without detriment
to the interest of students” (British Museum Act 1963).
However, this law does not pertain to other museums in the United Kingdom, and
yet it has set a precedent when other museums deal with issues of repatriation. This is
partly due to the British Museum’s national status. Some items have been repatriated
from other museums but these cases are limited.
2.4 Historical Overview of Native American interactions with the United
States and cultural resource laws:
In the 19th century, the Westward movement put pressure on Native American
cultures. Tribes were being pushed west, out of their ancestral homelands, by EuroAmerican settlers. In some cases, whole tribes were disappearing due to the introduction
of new diseases to North America and warfare with other tribes and the United States
federal government. The nature of anthropological fieldwork came from the perceived
necessity for collecting information from Native American cultures before they were
gone (Maurer 2000:14-15). Little thought was given to the displaying of artifacts. The
main focus of these early anthropologists was salvage ethnography and mass collection of
cultural material. During this phase, sacred objects and human remains were displayed
without concern for cultural taboos that might have been broken (Maurer 2000:20).
23
2.4.1 Sovereignty
Native American tribes are considered sovereign Nations within the United States
which established a political relationship between a tribe and the United States (Wilkins
2006:19). Native American tribal governments are sovereign because of government to
government treaties that took place first in the 1800’s (Delaware Nation and U.S. 1777).
“Sovereignty… means that in some contexts Indians are regaining a degree of local
autonomy at the state and federal level” (Oswalt 1999). Sovereignty gives Native people
self-determination over the way they live their lives. This also defines the way the United
States views them. Tribal governments are:
“…nations in the most fundamental sense of the word. That is, they are
separate peoples inhabiting specific territories that they wield some governmental
control or jurisdiction over” (Wilkins 2006:45).
Sovereignty gives them the authority to do the things that they deem important on their
own land and ultimately gives them authority over their culture. The greater exercise of
sovereignty has created opportunities for negotiations between Native American
governments and United States government. It has shifted the dynamics of the political
relationship from the oppressor and the oppressed to communication between
governments.
2.4.2 Removal to Termination 1819-1960
In the early 1800’s the forced migration of Native Americans began, also known
as ‘removal time’ because of their forced removal from their land. During this time the
Civilization Fund Act (1819) encouraged the United States government to remove eastern
24
tribes west of the Mississippi River, in an effort to free up more land for white settlers
(Wilkins 2006:113). The policy that removed Native Americans from their homeland
was “voluntary in name and coerced in fact” (Wilkins 2006:113).
By the mid-1850 the United States government developed a new policy in an
effort to acculturate Native Americans. It was known as the reservation policy, and was
administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Reservations were seen as the first
step to civilizing Native Americans (Wilkins 2006:114). Also used in the process was
the replacement of:
“…traditional communal economic base with a system of private property,
intensified education, primarily through boarding schools, the regulation of every
aspect of Indian social life, including marriage, dispute settlement, and religious
practice, and the granting of citizenship” (Wilkins 2006:116).
All of these factors contributed to the destruction of the Native American way of life.
The government’s actions eventually led to one of the most destructive policies, the
General Allotment Act of 1887. This act was used to undermine Native Americans’
notion of common stewardship of land, which was seen as one of the main reasons
hampering their enculturation. The act split reservation land into individual parcels:
“…heads of house-holds received 160 acres, single persons over eighteen
received 80 acres, those under 18 received 40 acres” (Wilkins 2006:117).
The land was held in trust and could not be sold for 25 years. This act split reservation
land but left much of it unclaimed. The surplus land was then purchased by the
government and then sold off to settlers.
Government policy shifted after the study by Lewis Meriam in 1926, which
illuminated the horrible conditions that Native Americans were subjected to. The
25
Meriam Report and other studies on the same subject led to more changes to federal
Indian policy. Assimilation was the ultimate goal, but the government employed new
methods in the transition. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ended the allotment
policy by:
“Providing measures whereby Indian land could be restored or new
reservations created, established a $10 million revolving credit fund to promote
economic development, permitted tribes to hire attorneys, and authorized tribal
governing bodies to negotiate with non-Indian governments”(Wilkins 2006:119).
The act successfully stopped the rapid loss of Native American land.
By the end of World War II, the United States Government felt that the continual
monetary support of Native Americas hampered their assimilation into the general
population. Resolution 108 in 1953 deemed that Native Americas “should be freed form
all disabilities and limitation especially applicable to Indians” (Wilkins 2006:120). The
CIA developed criteria for determining a tribe’s ability to survive off of government
support. Those found ‘civilized’ were then slated for termination. The termination of one
hundred and nine tribes happened between 1945 between 1960 because of Resolution
108.
2.4.3 American Antiquities Act (1906)
In the 20th century there was a shift from mass collection to display of artifacts
(Maurer 2000:27). Anthropologists and museum officials made new attempts to become
more culturally aware of the people behind the objects that were on display. This shift
also led to the creation of several cultural resource laws that protected Native American
26
archaeological sites and eventually laws that protected Native American rights. The first
of these laws came in the form of the American Antiquities Act of 1906.
The westward movement paired with the small economic depression in 1890 had
a detrimental effect on pre-historic archaeological sites. Looting of sites became the
livelihood and survival of some. These two significant occurrences joined with other
events such as the destruction of cultural material that led to the creation of the 1906 Act.
The creation of two organizations (the American Anthropological Association and
the Archeological Institute of America) in 1892 acted as catalyst for the growing
concerns over the protection of historic and pre-historic sites. Both of these organizations
worked relentlessly to inform the public about the great loss of historic and pre-historic
sites. The Southwest Expedition, led by A.F. Bandelier, produced significant reports that
gave real evidence to the “damage being done to Southwestern ruins by vandals and
looters” (Cole 1985:146). The Bandelier Expedition and others like it gave the
government hard evidence demonstrating that valuable sites were being destroyed. Other
concerns came with the realization that important cultural items were being shipped
overseas by foreign explorers. These situations caused the government to re-evaluate its
position on protecting cultural resources, eventually leading to the passage of 1906
Antiquities Act.
The American Antiquities Act of 1906 provided the United States government
with laws that allowed them to prosecute looters of important pre-contact archaeological
sites. It also allowed the government to designate significant cultural sites as national
27
monuments. Although it was an important move, the law had very small penalties for
those who violate its mandates, making the law ineffective.
2.4.4 Native American Activism
Political activism by Native Americans began when they started to fight against
termination era policy. The American Indian Movement (AIM) in 1968, and several
stand-offs with the government lead to yet another change in government policy. The
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 sought to impose United States constitutional rule on
tribal governments, intruding further into the lives of Native Americans.
Eventually, the new administration of President Nixon worked to gain a better
working relationship with Native American governments by passing acts such as the
Indian Education Act of 1972, the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance
Act of 1975, and the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (Wilkins 2006:122). He also
restored the Menominee Nation in 1973 and created the American Indian Policy Review
Commission in 1975. The compilation of these events started a new era of equality,
moving back to a government-to-government relationship.
2.4.5 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)
Another law that shaped the way Native Americans were represented in museums
was the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. For the first time, this act made Native
American religious practices legal in the eyes of the government, and Native Americans
were no longer arrested for practicing their own religions. However, the Peyote religion,
officially known as the Native American Church, is the only Native American religion
28
that has had any problem with the limitations of this law. The substance used in the
practice of this religion, peyote, is still considered illegal and those who use peyote are
not protected under the law (Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v.
Smith 1988). But, generally speaking, this recognition states that items used by Native
Americans in the practice of their religion are important to their spiritual beliefs.
2.4.6 Federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act 1990:
One should also note the influence of tourism on the types of goods Native
Americans produced. Tourism began in the 1700’s with the movement of Europeans to
the West. With this movement there was an increased demand for ‘Native American
Crafts’, creating the so-called Indian Art market.
In the 1700’s significant numbers of European settlers entered into North
America. Slowly they moved across the continent introducing European goods into the
Native American economy.
“Initially the introduction of European trade goods enriched but did not
seriously disrupt the accustomed modes of subsistence, which were based on
hunting, gathering, and farming supplemented by a small amount of specialized,
intertribal artisan trade” (Phillips 1984:4).
The access to traditional foods became limited as Native Americans were moved off of
their home lands; this void was filled by European foods. In the early 1800’s, settlers put
more pressure on western Native Americans as the settlers pushed further and further
across the continent. As a consequence, Natives were left with a decreasing means of
providing for their families. Their subsistence-based life style changed, they became
more dependent on outside sources for food. Ruth Phillips discusses this shift when she
29
states that, “with the disappearance of land and game, commodity productions closely
tied to the expanding tourist trade had become essential to many local economies”
(Phillips 1984:4). The tourist market became a means for many families to survive.
The creation of the tourist market invoked many stereotypical terms to classify
Native American art. Sometimes their work was called ‘curiosities’, ‘toys’, ‘trinkets’,
‘crafts’, or other derogatory terms. “Tourist art summons up the inauthentic, the massproduced, and the vulgar, (while) White art, in the Western tradition, is identified with
the beautiful and rare and the elite” (Phillips 1984:6). The association with White art
being beautiful and Native art as a ‘craft’ is something that Native Americans and others
in the art and scholarly community have fought to change. The market for Native
American art also created a stronger image of Native Americans as the ‘other’, which
reinforced the romantic notion of Native Americans.
In the late 1800’s, people sought what they considered authentic Native art. Many
envisioned Natives as simple people with a closer connection to nature. Phillips points
out that the demand for authentic Native art “…can be traced directly to the new interest
in tourist travel that had developed in England” and to the expansion of the railroads in
the 1800’s (1998:26). The railroads brought large numbers of tourist to remote villages,
eliminating the need for Native Americans to travel to the buyers. Native American
villages became places to sell ‘souvenirs.’ The village market also acted to authenticate
the work that was sold because Europeans could get Native American artwork at the
source. Europeans and white Americans would travel to the villages as part of a souvenir
buying experience (Phillips 1998:31). Eventually, Native Americans in remote areas
30
migrated to the popular resorts frequented by visitors from Europe in order to sell their
goods. Native Americans began to understand the importance of playing the part of being
Indian. White tourists had an image in their mind, and they wanted to see that image.
In 1985 the United States Department of Commerce surveyed the ‘Native
American Arts and Crafts’ market and found that it generated almost $800 million in
revenue each year (Smith 2005). Non-Natives began mass-producing Native American
goods that caused a drastic shift in profitability for Native Americans. Prices sky rocked
and Indian art became profitable for non-Indians because they could mass-produce the
same items cheaper than Native Americans. People were no longer able to make a living
selling their work, party due to counterfeits and machine-made look a-likes being
marketed as authentic handmade Native American goods. The mass produced goods sold
at a much cheaper price. “The fakes [drove] down the prices drastically, putting many
legitimate artisans and stores out of business” (Smith 2005). These fakes caused great
hardships for Native American families who were dependent on the revenue generated
from these sales in order to survive. Although, art that was considered fine art increased
in value as whites drove up the prices. A breakthrough in 1990 occurred with the passage
of the Federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act. This law made it illegal for non-Natives to
represent their work as Native American. The law was backed by hefty fines that could
equal up to $250,000 and five years in prison for the first offense. Even though a stiff
penalty was imposed for falsifying authenticity, fakes are still found in the market. This
is partly due to the lack of enforcement of the law.
31
This law also brought up issues of what it meant to be a Native American or who
was considered a Native American. Under the law, only card-carrying Native Americans
from federally recognized tribes could claim their work was Native American, thereby
excluding Native Americans from non-federally recognized tribes from selling their art as
‘authentic’.
2.4.7 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990)
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act passed in 1990 required
all museums in the United States that received federal funding to produce a list of all
artifacts in their collection that were related to Native Americans. This list was then sent
out to the associated federally recognized tribes through the National Park Service. The
tribes then have the option to claim culturally affiliated human remains, burial goods, or
items of ceremonial significance and cultural patrimony.
“The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act provides
Native American people and tribes with the right to recover and exercise control
over human remains and various cultural items. Although it will not result in the
return of all items that could be returned or the complete protection of all graves
sites, it does provide Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations and certain
individuals seeking to reclaim their ancestors and heritage, or protect grave sites,
with a number of enforceable legal rights” (Trope 1996:9).
This single act changed museums’ relationships with Native Americans in the United
States. Authority over Native American items was no longer solely in the hands of
museums but shared with Native American tribes. Rennard Strickland discussed the
importance of NAGPRA to the Native Americans when he stated:
“NAGPRA recognizes that Native peoples are not themselves museum
objects of dead cultures or even isolated remnants of quaint lost tribes; they are
32
members of ongoing governmental, social, economic, religious, and political
units. Native peoples are free under the law to define themselves and their life
ways, including their own legal systems definition of what is a sacred object, what
is cultural patrimony, what property maybe transferred by individuals, and what
property can be alienated or placed in trust only by the entire tribal group”
(Strickland 1997:88).
We have now moved into an era in which Native Americans are advisors, directors, and
curators to some of the top museums in our country. Museums are even owned and
operated by tribal groups taking the representation of Native Americans completely out
of the hands of the dominant culture.
2.4.8 Summary of United State Laws
The inception of cultural resource laws in the United States has shifted the power
structure in museums. Native Americans now have a voice in how they want their
culture represented in museums as well as what should be represented. This voice is
given authority because of the governmental laws that now allow Native Americans to
express their opinions and tell others what they believe to be important information about
their culture. Based on this history, my research asks to what extent those laws have
changed the way museums interact with and display Native American culture. According
to a statement published by the National Museum of the American Indian, Richard West
implies that these laws have helped give power to Native American communities.
“Its (National Museum of the American Indian) work reflects a strong
belief that Indians are necessary to understanding, interpreting, managing,
conserving, and exhibiting its unique collection of more than one million artifacts
made by Indian people” (West 1999:99).
The National Museum of the American Indian is a leading institution, contributing to the
changing view on Native Americans and the importance of including their views (Penney
33
2000:47). At the very least the laws have forced museums into a relationship with Native
tribes.
2.5 Native American Implementation of Cultural Resource Laws:
Domestic laws in the United States that are meant to give power back to Native
Americans have sometimes fallen short. Laws found in our county do not always take
into account the cultural differences found between different Native American groups.
Laws focus on the similarities, failing to see diverse cultures and issues.
Despite these problems, as stated earlier, the laws have opened up opportunities
for dialogue between Native Americans and museums. For example, the National
Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) has incorporated Native American worldviews
into their collection and exhibition practices. Tribes were asked to identify items that
were of cultural significance to them within the collection and they could then determine
if they wanted these items returned. If they chose not to obtain such items, they were then
given the opportunity to control how the museum would store and use these items
(Rosoff 2003:73-76). This dialogue, along with other factors has significantly changed
the way Native Americans are represented at the NMAI.
NAGPRA has also brought into the forefront the difference between the ideals of
Natives and Non-natives when dealing with cultural items. Clair Farrer notes that there is
no firm rule when dealing with the cultural items protected under NAGPRA (Farrer
1994). Each individual tribe has their own way of claiming rights to items, and the
understanding of ownership in a Western sense is different from that of Native
34
Americans. Also, the method of returning items to Native Americans can vary greatly
between groups. Finally, it is important to state that just as no two tribes are alike, it is
also true that no two museums are alike (Harlan 1996:55). All of these factors add to the
problems in implementing cultural resource laws.
2.6 Summary:
This research will demonstrate a relationship, which can be used to inspire the
international government to create laws that will influence the ways Native Americans
are displayed, or to set to up a situation in which Natives have a more prominent voice in
the international museum community.
Museums in the United States have taken a long journey of understanding, one
that will never be over. One museum official stated that every museum has:
“…the responsibility to engage in ongoing dialogues with representatives
of specific cultural groups whose art objects are to be the focus of exhibitions. In
addition, responsible action includes taking the time to research and internalize
the different ways in which specific cultural groups shape their knowledge and
structure the experience of their art objects” (Kelm 1993:158).
The first step is to equalize the power relationships found between museums and Native
Americans. The United States’ relationship with Native Americans has evolved from first
contact to the present, fostered by the development of cultural resources laws. Native
American relationships with museums today are also related to the unique relationship
between Native American Tribes and the federal government in the United States, as seen
in the government-to-government relationship. The relationship between Native
Americans and museums has now developed into a better relationship based on mutual
35
understanding of each other’s desires. The battle in the United Kingdom has only begun
and they can learn much from mistakes and triumphs in the United States. The result
would make the museum experience more educational for all.
36
Chapter 3: Methods and Research
3.1 Overview:
In this research, I compare the representation of Native American cultures in two
museums in the United States, the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture and the
Maryhill Museum of Art, both located in Washington State. I then compared them to
museums in the United Kingdom, the British Museum and the American Museum of
Britain.
My domains of inquiry were museum officials in the United States and the United
Kingdom, museum exhibits, and museum publications dealing with Native Americans. I
choose to use these domains to replicate a typical museum visitor’s experience, except
the interviews. I chose the two museums in the United States because they have large
Native American collections and because of their accessibility. In the United Kingdom,
there are four museums with Native American artifacts in their collection, but because of
my limited time frame, I was only able to study two.
For the purpose of this study, I have defined ‘accurate representation’ of Native
Americans in museums as a museum that shows Native Americans with a foundation in
the past but also firmly established in the present. Richard West states that a museum is a
“hemispheric institution of living cultures… [it] focuse[s] on the cultural present and
future as it is on a cultural past” (Richard West 1999:8). A museum that strives for
accurate representation is one that has direct contact with Native Americans and has
37
attempted to foster a relationship of mutual understanding. Items on display give the
audience a basic understanding of Native Americans without using potentially sensitive
cultural material such as ceremonial items. Native Americans should be included in the
entire process of creating displays that are culturally accurate. This definition combines
my own research with those other scholars concerned with Native American
representation in museums such as Harlan (1996), Hill (1999), Hopper-Greenhill (2000),
Kelm (1993), Maurer (2000), and Riegel (1996).
3.2 Examination of displays:
In order to examine the ‘accurate representation’ of Native Americans, I studied
displays using a model developed by James D. Nason (1999:37). This anthropological
model defines four types of museum displays that are used to represent Natives. I used
Nason’s types of museum representation because they closely follow the development of
museum representation. As the understanding of Native Americans changed, the
representation of them changed inside of museums. By looking at Nason’s types you can
begin to distinguish where a particular museum is situated in their relationship to Native
Americans.
Nason’s first display type is the open storage method. Objects are displayed in
one place with no regard to “age, provenance, or other relevant criteria” (Nason 1999:37).
Museums with smaller collections tend to display their items in the open storage manner.
The second type of display is the ‘Museum-visitor-as-tourist model’, also called
the ethnographic model. In this display type, Native Americans are represented in such a
38
way that the museum visitors are taken on a journey as they view each display. Display
materials are presented from one region or cultural group, and the museum visitor is
responsible for learning about the material. In the ethnographic model, museum displays
are locked into a particular time period.
Nason’s third form of exhibit is called the ‘habitat model.’ In this type, objects
are displayed to recreate or simulate a scene either historical or cultural (Nason 1999:
37). For example, a re-creation of a Potlatch ceremony would be a demonstration of the
‘habitat model’.
The fourth type is the developmental exhibit. This display type concentrates on
the development of some object or technology, such as the evolutions of fire making or
weaving. The title of a display might read ‘Native American Weaving’, a vague
description given to the visitor with little or no information about individual groups.
I have added a fifth category that takes into account those museums that might
represent Native Americans in a more accurate way, which is created out of my own
research. I refer to this as the ‘contemporary connection display’ model. This type of
display connects Native American groups on display to their modern day equivalent.
Museums that fall into this category would demonstrate direct connection between the
past and the present. This might be observed in a museum by the presence of a Native
American advisory board, periodic consultation with Native American representatives, or
actually having Native Americans working in the museum.
For each display I looked at the topics discussed, the tribes included, the objects
picked to demonstrate those topics, whether or not contemporary topics were discussed,
39
the way the objects were displayed, what lights were used, the colors in and around the
display, and so on. I examined each exhibit between thirty minutes to an hour, depending
on the size of the exhibit.
3.3 Museum Publications:
I examined publications produced by each of the museums in an effort to discover
the amount of information and the type of knowledge released to the public on Native
Americans. I looked at factors such as the location of the publication, how difficult it was
for the public to gain access to the information, and cost. I also looked at the context of
the information about Native Americans and how it was presented. Finally, I performed a
content analysis of each of the publications, looking at the variety of topics covered in
each of them. For example, I looked at the context in which Native American cultures
were explained, the use of certain terms such as colonization or European, and how many
tribes were represented.
3.4 Interviews:
I conducted semi-structured interviews with museum curators. (See appendix ‘A’
for list of questions.) I created open-ended questions to ask about things such as the
relationship between cultural resource laws and display construction, level of education
about Native cultures, and the relationships each of the museums had with Native
American Tribes. Latitude was given if interviewees wanted to go into more detail or to
make tangential but relevant comments. The questions were then used as a way of
40
probing the museum officials’ understanding of Native Americans and the extent to
which they collaborate with the Native peoples they represent.
I transcribed the interviews in a straight transcription method. This method is used
when the content of the interview is more important that the style in which it is recorded
(Schneider 2002:156). I then analyzed the interviews by related topics and themes.
Some of the themes that appeared within the interviews were: accurate interpretation of
Native Americans, the use of Native Americans as consultants, age of displays,
colonialism, cultural heritage, how museums research Native American cultures, object
selection, ownership issues, protection of objects, visitor importance, and funding.
Through examining museums in a variety of methods, I expected to see how
cultural resource laws in the United States shaped their relationships with Native
Americans. I believed that the interviews in particular would elaborate the extent to
which the representation of Native Americans has changed since the inception of cultural
resource laws. The examination of the displays and museum publications should further
demonstrate this shift. I predicted that the displays and publications would reflect more of
a Native American worldview. At the same time, I used these methods to see if the lack
of cultural resource laws in the United Kingdom contributed to a disconnection between
museums and contemporary Native Americans. This should be apparent in each of the
methods used in this research. I believe that cultural resource laws have shifted
American museums’ ethos, and this same awareness will be reflected in the displays and
publications of American museums.
41
I began my research in England by first going to the British Museum. I
specifically chose England because they speak English and I felt that there would be
fewer cultural barriers to work through. When I got off the plane I found myself in such
an unfamiliar environment that it took me a few days to adjust. It is easy to forget that the
English have a very different culture from our own and that just because we both speak
English, we do not have the same culture.
After spending time there, I continued the rest of my research in Bath, at the
American Museum of Britain. After returning to the United States, I made two trips, one
to the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture and one to the Maryhill Museum of
Art. I spent one day at each, looking at displays and collecting their official museum
publications. I set out with the notion that museums in the United Kingdom would be less
likely to represent Native Americans accurately and that they would fall into one of the
first four models.
After beginning my research I quickly realized that trying to classify each
museum into a set category, like open storage or the developmental model, was difficult.
Like people, each museum and even each museum display case, has its own unique
characteristics. They each draw upon some of the qualities set out by Jason Nason (1999),
but they by no means follow his categories exactly. After finding that most museums did
not fit nicely into one of the types that Nason identified, I decided to gather as much
information as possible about the displays themselves and the information found within
them.
42
I gathered most of this information by moving from one display case to the next,
examining the way the displays were constructed. I took photographs of each of the
displays so that I could analyze them further. I formulated a number of questions that I
used when looking at each of the displays, such as how big is the exhibit on Native
Americans? How many tribes are represented by the museum? What topics do they
represent in each of the museums (religion, art, subsistence)? How is the exhibit
constructed? How much does the written panel add to the exhibit conduct? Does the
museum use Native American voices? Is there a reflection of ‘binary oppositions’ in the
museum displays of any of these museums?
I looked at the types of objects that were on display and what decisions curators
made. I inquired during my interviews about the use of Native American representatives
when developing displays and the extent to which Natives were consulted. I also looked
at the topics represented in the displays and whether these were contemporary topics or
historical topics.
43
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Overview:
In this chapter, I first describe the two museums in the United Kingdom that were
included in this research, which were the British Museum and the American Museum of
Britain. I describe their displays, examine their official publications and finally discuss
information received from interviews and each museum. After the section on the United
Kingdom, I replicate the process for the United States. The museums in the United States
reviewed for this project were the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture and the
Maryhill Museum of Art. I found that each of the museums in this study looked at
representing Native Americans in differing fashions.
4.2 United Kingdom:
4.2.1 The British Museum:
The British Museum made a formidable attempt to represent Native American
history, which in turn was also one of their main problems; history and culture are two
separate entities. History is shaped by those who record it and culture is passed on
through group and community interactions. The British Museum explained Native
American history after 1492, after Native American contact with European settlers. The
museum also had one display case of pre-historic artifacts from Mound City, found in the
Ohio Valley. Native American consultants were used in some situations to gather
44
information about particular topics but the topics were chosen by museum curators
(Interview with Director of Ethnographic Department 2004).
4.2.1.1 Displays:
The displays on Native Americans in the British Museum were found in three
places. The first part of them was found in a gallery called ‘Living and Dying’, which
looked at how people from different cultures dealt with life and death. The second place
was a gallery, completely dedicated to Native Americans, which were both completed in
1994. The final place with Native American objects was in a gallery that looked at
‘Cabinet of Curios’ called ‘The Hall of Enlightenment’. One author explained the context
of in, which Cabinets of Curios were found in Europe.
“As the Age of discovery made Europeans aware of the vastness and
diversity of the world which lay beyond the continental boundaries, explorers of
these new worlds brought back samples of natural and human phenomena for
those who had financed the expeditions. These collections were often housed in
rooms filled with ‘cabinets of curiosities’ where gentry could reflect upon the
strange wonders of the world” (Conaty 2003:228).
They were called ‘Cabinets of Curios’ because of the manner in which these collections
displayed a wide assortment of curiosities, many of which had no relation to one another.
The displays found in the gallery of ‘Life and Death’ showcased several things,
including a restored totem pole, regalia from a shaman, and transformation masks. In
particular, the exhibit panels examined the relationship between people and animals from
the North West Coast region. This section of the display covered topics such as:
potlatches, a Haida creation story, the importance of animals in Native American culture,
and shamanism. The museum panels gave contextual information, including a brief
45
background to the displays or a short history of the items and then gave a description of
that item. For example, the description given with the Raven crest was:
“Haida people, Northwest coast of America, Alaska or British Columbia,
19 century. Raven is a central crest and personality of the Northwest Coast. He
helped to create the world and discover human beings, crawling out of a clam
shell on the beach. He used a black pebble to form Haida Gwaii (the Queen
Charlotte Islands). Raven is a gluttonous trickster, always greedy and creative
Eagle is his constant competitor for food” (Museum plaque 2004).
th
The museum plaque spoke briefly about the creation story of the Haida but not about the
people themselves. Although this section of the museum did not lend itself to an in depth
examination of the Haida people, the displays all fit into the topic of living and dying.
The point of the exhibit was to compare and contrast several cultures’ concepts and
rituals associated with life and death. Some of the other cultures included in this display
area were the Erari Turkmen from Afghanistan, the Shona from Zimbabwe, and the
Papyan from Columbia.
The next group of displays found in the main Native American Hall included
regional representations of different native groups: Northeastern Woodlands,
Southeastern Woodlands, California, Northwest Coast, West Coast, Northern Plains,
Arctic, and Southwest. Each display case was broken into regional groups, and most
discussed historical events. In a display case entitled ‘The American West’, the subject
of the early historic period was described as followed:
“During the early historical period, peoples living on the American Plains
formed two cultural groups. The fertile river valleys were sites of village dwelling
agricultural farmers, the Mandan and the Hidatsa on the Missouri and the Pawnee
and the Oto to the Southwest” (British Museum 2004).
46
Other topics included in this display were the Dawes Act, Napoleon selling French
America to the United States, the New Deal, European contact, massive epidemics, the
origin of Native Americans from a Western perspective, pottery, and ceremonial art.
They did show contemporary Native American culture by displaying photographs, and by
describing current cultural activities such as the Powwow. However, the museum gave
little consideration to contemporary Native Americans. For example, the exhibit gave
historical information with virtually no mention of contemporary Native American
weavers other than to say “little basketry is made by the Chumash now” (British Museum
2004). The museum missed a great opportunity to inform the public about contemporary
issues that surround basket weaving. If there was a closer relationship with Native
Americans, this issue might have been addressed.
The last exhibit with Native American objects was located in the gallery entitled
‘Enlightenment: Discovering the World in the Eighteenth Century’. The museum
displays in this section were purposefully put into a colonialist context to show visitors
how museums once displayed their objects. The museum told of the methods in which
early collectors sought to gather items that were unusual and different from those found
within their own culture, hence the name ‘Cabinets of Curios’. This also showed the
changing display methods inside museums in England, by displaying lots of items with
no relation to each other, and grouping items together that told a story from the same
culture.
Overall, the British Museum’s displays were visually sterile. The backgrounds in
the display cases were bright cream colored and the informational panels were printed on
47
white board with a few colored photos dispersed amongst the text. Objects in some cases
were placed on clear stands, which held them in varying heights; this created the illusion
that the objects were floating in space. The display cases themselves were very tall,
placing the visitor at a lower level. This caused the visitor to look upwards in order to
see the objects clearly. It is my opinion that this was done in an effort to eliminate
distraction from the objects themselves but failed by drawing more attention to the space
left around them.
In the main room that housed the regional displays, the collection was stark, with
large areas of nothingness. The floor was made out of what looked like marble, and there
were a few benches for visitors to sit on. Each of the displays cases were domineering
and overpowered the information and objects found within them.
4.2.1.2 Museum Publications:
There are many written documents from the British Museum, but I will only
discuss a few in this thesis. However, I found the accessibility of written documents to
the public was severely limited in this museum. This resulted in missing a vital
publication that would have been applicable to my research. This caused me to use three
free pamphlets and a recently published guide to a touring exhibit. The three free
pamphlets were two pages each and the other guide was twenty pages long.
These three pamphlets were free and readily available to the public. All of them
discussed the recently created gallery entitled ‘Enlightenment: Discovering the World in
the Eighteenth Century’. There were a few Native American items in this section of the
museum making these publications useful. The other museum publication I analyzed
48
included the guide to a collection of tours for several museums in the United Kingdom
and Ireland. This booklet was entitled ‘Native American Art: Irish American Trade the
Stonyhurst Mullanphy Collection’ (British Museum 2003). Although this booklet was
not available to the general public, I felt that it was important to include it in this
research, because at the time it was the most current written document produced by the
museum regarding Native Americans. There was also a guide to the entire museum that
was for purchase. Unfortunately, I was unaware of this guide therefore it was not
included in this research. It appeared that most visitors had the same experience I did,
and did not purchase this guide. There is a greater tendency for visitors pick up free
pamphlets rather than those that cost money.
The main gallery guide to the Enlightenment exhibit was a brief historical
overview. The British are very proud of their heritage and find it important to remind
others how the museum was created out of the era of Enlightenment. The entire exhibit
was created to look like the library of King George III in 1828. According to the
pamphlet, the Enlightenment was:
“…a time when people all over Europe began to look at the world in a
new way. They questioned ‘old’ knowledge, taken from classical authors and the
Bible, and instead based their ideas on reason and first-hand observation of the
natural world of man” (Enlightenment gallery guide 2004:1).
The Enlightenment period created a phase in museum history that was exemplified by
mass collection of objects from around the world.
This exhibit and guide brought up important information that pertains to this
research and the way that the United Kingdom and much of Europe collected artifacts
from non-Western cultures. The mindset of the Enlightenment period still plays a role
49
today because it still influences the outlook of museum officials. Historically, the British
Museum aspired to “create…an encyclopedia of the world in one place-a universal
museum” (Enlightenment 2004:2). The remnant of this same mentality is still present in
this museum. The policy that the museum has about returning items to other cultures is
an important example. They claim that they are holding important cultural items for the
good of all society (British Museum web page 2004).
The next booklet was found in the Enlightenment Gallery and is called ‘Carry on
Collecting’. This guide gave a description of eight objects found outside of the
Enlightenment gallery and encouraged the museum visitor to look at their place in the
context of the culture they are from. This pamphlet was geared towards school-aged
children. “You will notice that the objects in the Enlightenment Gallery are arranged to
show how, at the time, they contributed to universal knowledge, while in the rest of the
museum they are shown in their cultural context” (Carry on Collecting guide 2003). This
guide only spoke about Native Americans once, when it referred to the Nuu-chah-nulth
alder wood gull mask.
The last in this series of pamphlets is entitled ‘Eighteenth Century to E-bay:
family travel’. This was also geared towards a younger audience. The booklet connected
collecting in the eighteenth century to collecting in the present. It discussed the topic of
selecting items to be collected and why people find some things collectible and other
objects undesirable. Another topic examined was the way people categorize objects,
which was then related to the 18th century practice of grouping things together by what
they are made of.
50
The last museum publication included in this research from the British Museum
was the gallery guide entitled ‘Native American Art: Irish American Trade, the
Stonyhurst Mullanphy Collection’. This publication looked at the collection of Native
American objects gathered by a trader Bryan Mullanphy.
The booklet talked mainly about the collector and less about how the collection
exemplified Native Americans. There was a brief section that discussed American
treaties but the subject quickly changed to the collector and his purchase of a unique
deerskin map (British Museum 2003). Subjects also covered in this booklet included:
pipes and tobacco, hunting, warfare, the role of women in trading, and tourism. The last
subject discussed was the revival of Native American culture after European contact.
The author of this booklet claimed that Powwows were a ‘central feature’ of this revival
movement. In comparison, Brent Florendo, a Native American dancer and professor at
Southern Oregon University, stated that the Powwow began due to the movement of
people from reservation to reservation. Certain reservations had commodity foods or
foods that were distributed from the government to supplement Native American diets.
The celebrations that arose out of this movement for food became the Powwow (Personal
communication with author November 2002). The Powwow was then related to
colonialism and the oppression felt by Native Americans during this time. This was not a
revival of traditional ways but an outlet for some traditional ways to be expressed under
colonial rule of the Americans (2002).
Overall, this publication discussed important issues such as treaties, cultural
revival, and women’s roles; some of these issues could be explored further or in a
51
different context. The publication also had a tendency to use broad inclusive terms and
generalized images. It used the word ‘all’, when referring to Native Americans or
Indians, implying that all Indians were alike instead of saying ‘some’ Native Americans.
For example, “all adult men owned a pipe of their own as did some women” (British
Museum 2003:8). The publication also tended to use stereotypical images of Native
Americans, like that of a Plains Indian Warrior wearing a headdress, which was used
several times to represent Native Americans.
This publication talked about information that only scraped the surface of issues,
such as historical treaties made with Native Americans. Rather than taking the
opportunity to explore specific treaties and how they influenced Native Americans both
historically and contemporarily, they only mentioned the concept of treaties. This
publication also talked briefly about Native Americans and their relationship to land,
missing the opportunity to inform the public about deeper issues like sustainability,
pollution, and other important issues that explain why Native Americans still have a
connection to the land.
4.2.1.3 Interview:
My interview at The British Museum was smooth and informative, which lent to
the free exchange of ideas. Like me, the director of the Ethnographic Department was
interested about the things that we could share with each other.
During the interviews, I asked how the curators researched and created displays.
It was obvious that the British Museum had a firmer grasp of the true reality surrounding
Native Americans, which was something I was not expecting. They at least included
52
some contemporary information on Native Americas, and consulted them when creating
their newest display. This was partially due to the amount of funding that they received
from the government and their connection to the international museum community. Also,
several Native American informants were used in the creation of the newest gallery in
1994.
They are at least interested in contemporary issues of Native Americans. During
a casual conversation with the director of the Ethnographic Department from the British
Museum, the topic of blood quantum was discussed and included issues that now
surround Native Americans identity in relation to tribal enrollment. He had no idea that
children in the same family can fall under different blood quantum rules. These rules can
allow children from the same two parents to have different enrollment status, virtually
making one a tribal member and the other not a member. In all fairness, many American
citizens do not understand or have knowledge of enrollment issues.
During the interview, we discussed the importance of connecting a museum
exhibit to the visitor’s experience. He stated that the common thread between the
museum and its visitors was European contact and expansion (Director of Ethnographic
Department 2004).
I was also interested in the museum’s position on human remains because it is one
of the main elements of NAGPRA. This museum estimated that 1 in every 1000 Native
American objects was some form of human remains. This is a very serious issue for
Native Americans, and is only now being dealt with in England. To begin with, the
English have a different view on human remains. There is no legislation protecting
53
people’s rights’ and doctors have the right to lay claim on someone who has passed away
in the name of research. For example, when a body is accessioned into the greater
collection of the government it then falls under the same rules as other objects. Because
of this there are no provisions for disposing of bodies once they are collected.
Unfortunately, Native American remains fall under this category, which means that they
will continually be stored in museums until legislation changes (Wood 2004).
However, Karenne Wood, a government official, stated that…“most recently, a
summit meeting took place in London because 38 museums in the UK hold collections of
Native American remains, and they were deciding whether to issue guidelines
recommending repatriation” (e-mail to author 2004). The return of human remains would
be a good start to the healing process that could continue with the return of other items
and ending in greater collaboration in the future. The director of the Ethnographic
Department stated that he was encouraged by the government’s effort to make right
something that was wrong. He also explained that the museum could do little to
repatriate human remains because they still fall under the accessioning rules of the
museum (Director of Ethnographic Department 2004).
4.2.2 The American Museum of Britain:
The American Museum of Britain’s collection is housed in a Victorian manor
home located in the city of Bath, making it quite different from the British Museum. Each
room in the house depicts a different time in American history from the 17th to the 19th
54
century. A publication produced by the museum explains the context surrounding the
museum.
“The museum comprises a spectacular series of diverse and authentically
furnished rooms, tracing the American way of life from Colonial times to the mid
19th century. Rooms showing how the Shakers lived, a stenciled bedroom, an
elegant Greek revival dining room, Native American artifacts and the finest
collection of American quilts outside America are particularly popular”
(American Museum 2004).
Funding issues negatively influenced the American Museum of Britain. They have a
limited amount of outside funding, which was exemplified throughout their outdated
displays. The lack of contemporary topics in the museum demonstrated just how dated
the displays really were, which is expounded by the museum’s use of over-generalized
objects to typify the different regional groups. It is likely that their funding issue also
prevented their ability to bring in Native American consultants. Recently, they received a
grant that would allow them to update some of their displays about Native Americans.
4.2.2.1 Displays:
The Native American collection was located in the basement of the house, at the
end of a winding maze of darkness. There were approximately six cases in the display
area. The collection also included a few historical photos on some of the walls. The
ceiling in the basement was very low and there were pipes running along the top. The
exhibit was lit by only a few overhead lights and some inside of the display cases. The
walls in the display area were painted dark brown and caused the whole area to look very
ominous.
55
When entering the Native American collection, visitors were greeted first with the
story of Pocahontas, with the text presented on three lithographs. On a small plaque it
stated:
“Lithograph shows a Victorian interpretation of the Pocahontas story. The
princess, whose likeness was carved on merry-go-rounds and appeared on tobacco
packets, has been transformed into a heroine of folklore” (American Museum).
Unfortunately, the story on the lithographs was overpowered by the rest of the display,
making it difficult for a visitor to see.
The next set of displays explained different living structures found in different
parts of North America. There was a large map of the United States with strings attached
to different parts of the country and the other end attached to a living structure. These
include: a Mandan earth lodge, a North West plank house, a Southwest Pueblo, a
nomadic Plains Indian tipi, a dome shaped bark wigwam, and an Iroquois long house.
The plaque that accompanied this display briefly described the methods used in making
the structures.
“The models of typical Indian dwellings shown in this case range from the
bark-covered wigwam of the nomadic hunters of the North East Woodlands and
the Iroquois long house, to the typical building on stilts of the Seminole tribe of
the South east, to the Tipi made of buffalo skins of the Central Plains Indians.
The Mandan Earth Lodge of the North, and the mud-covered Pueblo of the South
West” (American Museum 1970).
Next to this display was a list of different tribes found in North America organized
according to what state they were originally found. This list of the tribes was not an
exhaustive list. For example, in Oregon, the plaque listed only six tribes when there are
actually over seventy tribes and bands that reside in Oregon. The rest of the displays
were broken into regional groups: Southwest, Plains, etc. The museum displays show
56
only a limited sampling of artifacts from each regional area. The Southwest section had a
display about pottery and Navajo jewelry. Next to the display on Navajo jewelry was a
sign explaining how pawns and pawnshops worked in the American Southwest.
“Pawns became an integral part of trading post business, the jewelry being
used as collateral for food and merchandise, not money. The Indian Bureau’s
regulations for reservation trading posts stated that articles accepted as pawn must
be held by the trader for at least one year and owner must be informed after the
deposit was due. If the pieces were then not reclaimed the trader was free to sell
it. A very great deal of the better and older type of Navajo Jewelry has been this
‘dead pawn’, acquired from trading posts, some of which operated in very remote
areas of reservations” (American Museum 1970).
The exhibit failed to tell the horrible circumstances that made pawnshops a necessity. The
curators chose not to explore fully their own culture’s place in Native American history.
They tended to focus on the good things and overshadow the bad. The exhibits in this
museum continually referred to Native Americans as entities of the past, and gave no
indication that Native American culture continues to flourish in the Americas today. This
museum did not give an accurate representation of Native Americans because there was
no indication in any of the texts that they consulted with or otherwise communicated with
contemporary Native Americans. This is partly due to the age of the exhibit, which was
installed in 1970. At the time it was created, anthropologists were considered authorities
of the information, leaving Native informants out of the discussion.
The next display had a single Plains style War bonnet from 1920’s, which was a
large symbolic representation of what white culture might think of when looking at
Native Americans. The museum grouped stereotypical images from regional groups
together: such as, plains War bonnet, Navajo turquoise jewelry, and Pueblo style pottery.
57
However, they failed to examine their objects on a deeper level. For example, one of the
plaques stated:
“By the middle of the 19th century, encroaching settlement in the
Northeast deprived the native peoples of their traditional ways of living. Many
turned to making commercial items to survive. Traditional materials gave way to
cloth, glass beads and silk threads” (American Museum 1970).
They failed to explain further the reasons why this event was happening or discuss further
the Indian art market. A small amount of research into this time period would explain
why Native Americans started selling art objects. As a result they gave their museum
patrons only a semi-accurate representation of Native Americans.
Overall, the displays were not maintained in accordance with the changing times.
Almost everything in the display area was permanent structures and fixtures that would
not be easy to remove or change. The objects themselves were the only things that could
easily be removed. All of the displays in the museum, Native American or not, were old
and outdated. As a side note these displays were installed in the 1970’s and the current
curator was not on staff when they were installed.
4.2.2.2 Museum Publications:
The publications of the American Museum consisted of three booklets. The first
was the main guide to the museum that visitors were given after paying their entrance fee.
The next publication was a travel brochure found at many of the local bus stations and
hotels. The last publication I obtained was a gallery guide to a temporary exhibit that they
recently disassembled.
58
The main guide to the museum told about the creation of the museum and then
described each of the rooms or areas of the museum briefly. The only mention of Native
Americans was to tell the visitors of the Native American collection in the basement.
This guide gave a perfect example of how the museum overlays all of American history
within the context of European contact. The entire guide became more of an explanation
as to the connections between England and America than an explanation of American
history. For instance, each of the rooms was a depiction of some point in American
history. For example, the “…period room which represents one of the reasons why
people chose to leave Europe to cross the ocean and settle in America- freedom to
practice their religion” (American Museum in Britain 2004). The history was continually
related back to Europeans and specifically to the English.
The travel brochure only talked about the collection briefly and then gave some
dates of events at the museum. For example, it spoke of an American Indian dance group
that performed at the museum every year. After inquiring about this group the director
informed me that they were English citizens that dressed up and pretended to be Native
Americans, which causes one to question the level of authenticity of the dance.
The last publication that I examined was the gallery guide to the exhibit entitled
‘The North American Indian: as varied as the land.’ As I mentioned before, this exhibit
had recently been removed from public display when I arrived. The beginning of the
publication gave a disclaimer stating that everyone has a different view on who Native
Americans are and no two views are the same. They do state that they are only trying to
tell a part of the whole story and that they are limited by the objects that they have in
59
their collection. The three page publication was then broken down into regional groups.
Half of the publication was dedicated to explaining Plains Indians and Southwest Indians
leaving the last half to cover seven other over-arching indigenous groups. In this
publication, Native Americans were usually referred to in a historical context, reflecting
an obsession with romantic notions about Native Americans. In fact, there were only
twelve sentences that gave the reader contemporary information. There was some
information about the large population of Native Americans in the state of California and
Native American artists. For the latter, the author says “today some Native American
artists prefer to be considered artists who happen to be Indians; others consciously adhere
to their native traditions” (American Museum of Britain 2004). The author could have
used this opportunity to talk about a variety of issues that face Native Americans, rather
than more generalized subjects.
A statement at the end of the publication exemplified their view of Native
Americans. It stated: “the huge diversity of American Indian people became lost and
confused behind the image of the plains warrior” (The North American Indian 2004). It
seemed that they are also caught up in this image, illustrated by the large amount of
information given on the Plains Indians. The stereotype was given in the same
publication that claimed to tell a different story.
4.2.2.3 Interview:
The interview that I conducted at The American Museum of Britain was different
from than that of the British Museum. The entire interview took only about 15 minutes.
The director of the museum answered all of my questions as short as possible even
60
though I asked open-ended questions. She was very guarded in her answers and acted
very suspicious of my research. After the taped part of the interview she talked more
freely.
One of the first topics I discussed with her was how their museum created exhibits
about Native Americans. She stated, in regards to a recent temporary exhibit:
“We start by using the objects themselves and we would have to use what
objects we had, but then we would try to put them into context. In fact when we
did our exhibition we organized them geographically by different (inaudible).
And we would look at the objects and why they were created, what they meant to
the people rather than as just objects” (American Museum 2004).
During this part of the interview we talked about the resources available for curators
when doing research about Native Americans, and how they vary at each museum. The
director stated that at this museum they had a good library, which was their only
resource. However, curators should explore the objects that they have in their collection,
as well as their written documents. This allows them to then formulate questions about
those objects and take those questions to the people who made the objects or if not
available, another reputable source. Written documents should only be the first step in
researching Native Americans or any museum exhibit.
Another topic discussed during this interview was the drum group that came to
the museum to perform each year. The drum group was comprised of English citizens
that dressed up like Native Americans and performed all over England.
“They love the culture…they went over and learned how to do it
accurately; they learned the dances and how to make the costumes” (American
Museum 2004).
61
Despite their ‘authentic’ Native American dance it is unclear if any Native American
groups have ever been asked to visit their museum. Thus questioning the representation
of Native Americans by non-natives, such as the romantic notion that non-Natives have
of Native American culture, which could be an issue.
This interview brought up significant issues that museums in the United Kingdom
face. One of the most important issues is the lack of funding, which affects their displays
and their involvement with Native Americans. If they had unlimited resources, they
could potentially bring different Native American groups to the museum to act in
collaboration with the museum.
4.3 United States:
4.3.1 The Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture:
The Burke Museum is the best of the four I researched in regards to how
museums should represent Native Americans. The Burke Museum is located in
Washington State, on the campus of University of Washington. The museum collection
consists of natural history items as well as cultural items. During the planning phase of
their newest cultural displays, Native Americans were consulted from the beginning,
according to the information in their gallery guide (Burke Museum n.d.). Not only were
they allowed to determine what topics would be discussed in the exhibit, but they also
decided which objects would be used to tell those stories. As museums gain a better
understanding of different cultures, this type of display method is becoming more and
more popular.
62
4.3.1.1 Displays:
The Native American displays were housed on the second floor of the museum in
an exhibit entitled ‘Pacific Voices’. This exhibit explored the ‘cultural identity’ of those
people who lived along or on the Pacific Rim. Each part of the exhibit was broken down
into regional groups: Samoans, Native Americans, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, etc…
From there it was broken down into three parts entitled ‘Our Languages’, ‘Our Stories’,
‘Our Teachers’, and ‘Our Ceremonies’.
As one came into the exhibit from upstairs, all visitors were greeted with a
salutation from a person from each of the represented groups, one of which being Native
American. At the bottom of the stairs, there was an introduction to the exhibit called
‘Pacific Voices: Worlds Within Our Community.’ There was a film playing that depicted
people who represented their cultures in the exhibits. The individuals talked briefly about
their people and where they were from. Included in this part of the display was a map and
in front of the map was a set of photos. The first part of the Native American piece of the
exhibit talked about ‘Lushootseed: Puget Sound’s First Language.’ This part of the
display showed photographs of Lushootseed speakers, which included Chief Seattle, as
well as examples of Salish weaving.
Next were three cases dealing with oral traditions and storytelling. Included in
these cases were the oratorical regalia of a Tlingit chief, a variety of masks from Alaska,
and one case of Northwest Coast masks. The next set of displays examined teachers from
each of the cultures. This information was housed in three large cases, and covered
significant teachers from northern, central and southern Northwest Coast regions.
63
Included in this part of the exhibit was a display of some of Charles Edenshaw’s argillite
carvings including a photo of him. In the display case was a short description of the
significant contributions that Charles made in the traditional carving world.
The last part of the exhibit discussed ceremonies. In the center of this case was a
contemporary sculpture of Inupiaq whaling. The sculpture was surrounded by different
items related to whaling and the yearly whaling ceremonies. The next case talked about
the First Salmon ceremonies and included tools used in fishing. The last two cases dealt
with Potlatch ceremonies, which displayed a variety of Potlatch masks and potlatch
regalia and gifts.
Overall, the museum shared a lot of information with its visitors, although it was a
bit overwhelming. The exhibit was well lit and was obviously newly constructed. The
overall flow of the exhibits was sacrificed in an effort to relate the different cultural
groups included in the display. Despite all of the problems with flow, the exhibit did give
the audience a clear understanding of North West Coast Native Americans by connecting
them to real contemporary people. One plaque says:
“Colonization occurred earlier on the Southern North West Coast than
further North. Although traditional language and religion continued underground,
many art forms ceased. Beginning in the 1960’s, Southern North West Coast,
many artist trained in mainstream art schools, began to reconnect with their art.
They studied museum pieces that had long ago been taken from their
communities” (Burke Museum 2004).
Native Americans were not displayed as a dying culture; they were shown thriving and
living in the modern world.
The museum displays were less stark and impersonal compared to the ones found
in the United Kingdom. One was able to get a real sense of the people that was being
64
represented. This allowed the audience a multi-dimensional view of Native American
life, instead of the typical depiction of Natives that many museums portray. Only tribes in
the Pacific region were represented by this museum. They decided not to overextend
themselves in trying to cover every tribe in the United States. The plaques in this
museum added relevant information to the displays by giving important historical
information while grounding Native Americans in the present. The topics were also
relevant to Native Americans because they were chosen by them, something that museum
patrons would discover if they read the gallery guide. The topics that the museum
covered included: traditions, teachers, elders, art, ceremonies and language, among other
things.
4.3.1.2 Museum Publications:
There were two museum publications that I found at the Burke Museum of
Natural History and Culture. The first was a small museum pamphlet at a rest area. The
other was an Exhibit guide to their Ethnographic exhibit entitled ‘Pacific Voices’.
The museum pamphlet consisted of a brief explanation of all of their exhibits and
information about cost of admission, location and operating hours. Native Americans
were only discussed in the context of the exhibit of the cultural traditions of the Pacific
Northwest.
The next museum publication entitled ‘Pacific Voices, celebrating the worlds
within our community’, discussed the cultural heritage of the Pacific Northwest. The
first part of the publication examined the creation of the display and those they consulted.
The publication’s author stated:
65
“In the past, museums assumed that curators were authoritative
interpreters of other cultures. Today, however, museums are working closely
with the people whose objects are displayed to learn how their heritage should be
portrayed for museum visitors” (Pelz 1998:1).
The author’s comment symbolized the overall philosophy of the museum and their
representational policies. The publication went on to explain that the museum had
consulted over one hundred and fifty individuals, who helped in all aspects of the
development and construction of the cultural display. The cultural informants helped
with “design conceptualization, object selection, label writing, photo selection, video
screening, program planning, fabrication, and installation” (Kahn 1998:2). Through this
process they linked living Native Americans to museum displays.
This publication consisted of an introduction and three chapters: ‘Our Languages
and Our Stories’, ‘Our Teachers’, and ‘Our Ceremonies’. Each of the chapters were
broken into each of the cultural groups exhibited in the display.
The introduction began with a welcome from the first people of the Puget Sound
area, the Coast Salish people. This section also introduced the Salish people as well as
some of their pivotal teachers. Most of this booklet talked directly about items within the
display while giving relevant background information in the context of the culture. For
example, the exhibit had a canoe that was hanging above the stairway and the exhibit
guide gave cultural information about the canoe:
“The twenty four foot canoe was carved from a single cedar log by a
Quileute carver. It is typical of the canoes made by Native people of the Pacific
Northwest Coast…Considerable skill was needed for each step in creating these
highly seaworthy craft-from selecting the log, to initial rough carving, to shaping
its hydrodynamic curves- and the master carvers who made these canoes were
respected members of Northwest villages” (Pelz 1998:10).
66
This was an effective way to discuss the exhibit. This was achieved through giving a
context to the items, rather than placing objects in a display with little or no information.
In the first chapter, ‘Our Languages, and Our Stories’, the author talked about the
importance of language preserving cultural heritage. The sub-section that discusses
Native Americans was entitled ‘Lushootsee: Puget Sound’s First Language’. It began by
discussing the history of Lushootsee, and then talked directly about the objects within the
exhibit. In this same chapter, the topic of oral traditions and storytelling called ‘Breath of
our Ancestors: Languages and Oral Traditions’ was also discussed. The publication
examined the use of objects to enhance an oratory experience.
The second chapter, ‘Our Teachers’, discussed Native American teachers in a
section entitled, ‘Northwest-Coast Artists: Carriers of our Traditions’. In this section, a
short history of Northwest Coast Art was described. In the Northwest-Coast tradition,
artists were considered teachers, which was not always true in other cultures. It also
explained the changes that occurred in the art in an effort to retain the traditions during
the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when Canada suppressed their way of life.
“Instead of making artwork for ceremonies, northern artists such as
Charles Edenshaw mostly made pieces for sale. Men carved model poles in wood
and argillite (a black stone). Women wove baskets and hats for sale to outsiders.
Through these objects, links were retained with the cultural past, but the function
of art changed” (Pelz 1998:30).
The publication described the revival that took place, which enabled elders to preserve
these traditions in hiding. They also used museum pieces to study some of the traditions
that were lost to them (Plez 1998:31). The chapter then described the items in the exhibit
giving the reader supplemental information.
67
The final chapter, called ‘Our Ceremonies’, discussed Inupiaq whaling. The
publication explained the importance of the whale hunt to Inupiaq society. The chapter
also talked about the First Salmon Ceremony and the Potlatch. This pamphlet did a good
job connecting the historical information with the present day application of the
ceremony. It also described the importance of the ceremony, how it was connected
within the culture, and not separated from it.
This exhibit guide was effective in its effort to connect living culture with the
objects in the museum. The author discussed the context surrounding the exhibits and
objects; however the objects themselves didn’t take precedence over the people who
created them. There was a lot of information in this guide and it was well worth the
price, although it is unfortunate that all of this information was not also in the exhibit.
4.3.1.3 Interview:
Unfortunately, I was unable to secure an interview at The Burke Museum of
Natural History and Culture. The main reason for this was due to the staff being
inundated with requests and they were not able to meet with me.
4.3.2 Maryhill Museum of Art:
The Maryhill Museum of Art is located in Washington State along the Columbia
Gorge. It was originally designed to be a ranch home for Samuel Hill and his family but
was never completed. A close friend to Mr. Hill convinced him to turn his empty home
into an art museum in 1917 (Tesner n.d.). The Maryhill Museum of Art is unique because
it interacts differently with Native American communities. They use Native American
68
consultants whenever possible, and they try to bring in a Native American curator as a
guest. However, funding limits the frequency of this option. Also, the location of the
Maryhill Museum put them in close proximity to several Native American communities,
which allows them to use information from them that would not necessarily be available
to others.
4.3.2.1 Displays:
The Native American display of the collection was located on the bottom floor, in
a structure connected to the main house. It was broken up into two different parts. First,
part of the display included some of the museum’s earliest dated objects or things that
were considered pre-contact and then the rest of the collection was broken into nine
regional groups. These groups included; Plains, Woodlands, California, Southwest, Great
Basin, Arctic, Sub-Arctic, Northwest Coast, Plateau regions. In the center of the Native
American displays, there was an exhibit discussing Lewis and Clark.
Each of the display cases was systematically organized. Often objects were placed
in some sort of pattern. For example, the arrowheads in the pre-contact area were all
displayed in a spiraling geometric pattern. This method of display was used on other
objects such as war clubs, or any other object that the museum had in large quantities,
with the exception of their basket collection. The displays were integrated with historical
photos of the people from different areas. Each of the regional areas began with an
informational board that described the region and the people of that area.
Overall, the displays were well lit and the visitor could see all of the objects in the
display cases without any difficulty. The objects could easily be removed and replaced
69
with other objects and the descriptive plaques within the cases appear to be easily
removable. The background in the display was a blue-gray color rather than white, which
created a better visibility of the objects. The way Native Americans are displayed in this
museum might be the result of issues such as funding, or the lack of staff.
There were many tribes represented in the museum but the orientation was geared
towards regional groups. It was hard to ascertain the Native American voice in the
museum displays because the exhibit plaques did not give direct quotes from Native
American people. The plaques in the displays added some relevant information to the
displays but were mostly historical in nature and lacked significant information about
contemporary Native Americans.
4.3.2.2 Museum Publications:
There were three different publications of the Maryhill Museum that mentioned
Native Americans. The first was a gallery guide, which gave an overall presentation of
the most significant objects in the museum’s collection. The next were three miniature
educational guides, and the last was a gallery guide to an exhibit about cornhusk bags of
the Plateau Indians.
Most prominently, Native Americans were discussed in the main gallery guide.
The name of the publication was called ‘Maryhill Museum of Art’. It discussed the
history of the museum and then briefly overviewed the areas inside of the collection. This
publication noted the connection that the founder of the museum, Sam Hill, had with the
Native American community, which gave context to the collection as a whole. Sam Hill
was particularly interested in the history of the indigenous people of the Pacific
70
Northwest and collected many artifacts during his lifetime. He was a good friend to Chief
Joseph of the Nez Perce and was adopted into the tribe at some point. Also described in
this publication was his work in erecting a monument that resembled Stonehenge, to
honor the Klickitat men who died in World War I. However, no reason was given as to
why he chose to represent Native American people with a monument that resembled
Stonehenge.
The later parts of the publication described the collection of Native American
artifacts in more detail. It explored the basket collection, which included over eight
hundred baskets that represented almost every type of basketry-making technique found
in North America. It also illustrated the collection’s regional organization and included a
section that discussed the effects of European contact on Native American goods. This
publication was a good introduction to the history of the museum and its collections. It
was fairly lengthy, at 117 pages, and would not necessarily be something that one could
read while at the museum. Another factor in determining the accessibility of this
publication was the price, which was approximately $15 and found only inside of the gift
shop.
The next type of publication included three miniature guides that were located at
the entrance of the museum. The titles of these publications were ‘Be Maryhill Museum’s
Sculpture Expert’, ‘Be Maryhill Museum’s Cultural Expert’, and ‘Be Maryhill Museum’s
Corp of Discovery’. All of them listed a mission for the museum visitor and seemed to
be geared towards school-age children. The publications took the visitors to different
locations inside of the museum to explore and answer questions about the collection. The
71
questions were designed to have the visitors think critically about the objects within the
museum. The miniature guides were free and accessible to the public. After completing
them, the visitor was encouraged to show them to the front desk to receive a prize.
The last museum publication was the gallery guide to the cornhusk bags. It
discussed cornhusk bags and their association with the Plateau people. It nicely followed
the use of cornhusk bags before contact and how its use changed after the diet of Plateau
people changed. The publication then discussed weaving techniques, material use, design,
and the major shifts in the designs of the bags. ‘Cornhusk Bags of the Plateau Indians’
was a great introduction to cornhusk bags and gave the museum visitor another source of
information on a topic that they might be interested in. The publication was found in the
gift shop for a cost of $2.00.
It is unfortunate that this museum lacks the ability to allow visitors access to a
wider variety of publications free of charge. The publications are also lacking in that
they did not give a considerable amount of information about contemporary Native
Americans.
4.3.2.3 Interviews:
After a great amount of effort, I finally was granted an interview with two of the
museum officials at the Maryhill Museum of Art. One was granted by the director of the
Maryhill Museum of Art and the other was with an advisor to the Native American
collection. The interview with the advisor was only a side notation of the main interview
and gave no significant information to this research; therefore, it is not included. All of
the interviews were conducted vie email and took place in a series of five messages. Two
72
of them started out as an interview between the director and myself and then were
forwarded to the advisor to the Native American collection. It took almost a year of
continuous effort to get the interviews completed. Unfortunately, the interview was not
under the best of situations. This method allowed the interviewees a lot of time to choose
their words carefully and did not lend to discussion beyond the questions asked.
The interview with the director of the Maryhill was nevertheless informative. It
was evident that the museum has contact with Native American groups but not to the
extent that I assumed. They have a curator that is just for the Native Collection and also
an advisor that lived for many years on a reservation in the Northwest. They frequently
invite guest curators and tribes to work on displays, but funding still became an issue that
affected this museum. The director discussed the exhibit’s installation.
“We have made few if any changes to the permanent Native Peoples
exhibition since it was installed in 1990. It is geographically based to inform
people about all the main tribal groups” (Maryhill 2006).
The museum did not outwardly reflect any changes due to NAGPRA. However, in the
interview I was told that NAGPRA has changed this museum’s internal working and its
relationships with different Native American groups. Also, in the interviews, I found that
they do have contact with several of the local tribal groups and these groups have acted as
consultants on displays and programs (Directory of Maryhill 2006).
Overall, the interview gave me a different view into the issues faced by museums
in the United States in comparison to those in the United Kingdom. Museums in both the
United States and the United Kingdom were concerned about the interpretation of Native
Americans but on varying levels. Many museums in the United States tried to interpret
73
objects in the most accurate way possible and they believe this is best achieved by using
Native American informants. The director of the Maryhill Museum of art stated that they
try to implement Native American worldviews through a variety of methods.
“We do not have a curator of our Native American collection on staff; we
invite guest curators and have an advisor that spent many years living on
reservations in the Northwest. We try and involve the tribes in our area when we
tell stories through exhibitions and to explain things from the broadest perspective
possible” (Director of Maryhill 2006).
The museum has developed innovative ways to communicate with a variety of Native
Americans.
4.4 Summary of Results
As a result of examining two museums in the United Kingdom and two museums
in the United States, I found that there are significant differences between the two
countries. In the following section I will summarize the results from each of the
museums.
4.4.1 The British Museum
The British Museum reflects the growing awareness of indigenous issues and
global museum standards, which is exemplified in their attempt to include Native
American voices in their displays. This is also demonstrated by their understanding of the
museum’s collection of human remains and their attempt to return it to Native Americans
(Wood 2004). This museum has changed over the years but still fosters colonialist
74
attitudes. The combinations of these opposing forces are found within the museum’s
displays, publications, and interviews.
The displays in the museum that included Native Americans were found in three
separate areas of the museum. The displays in the main area split Native Americans into
regional groups. They discussed historical issues throughout the displays with few
indications of contemporary issues that surround Native American lives. Modern issues
were overshadowed by historical events in the attempt to establish European connections
to Native Americans.
The museum’s publications further reflected residual colonialist ideals, along with
structuralist ones. The Enlightenment Guide explored the need for the English to create a
place where the world’s knowledge and objects could be stored. Even though the
museum still functions as a storage place for knowledge, it has also shifted its focus to
other areas such as the cultural rights of source communities. The museum is caught up
in issues surrounding the repatriation of different items to a variety of cultural groups and
has reflected the desire to return some culturally sensitive items to the communities they
originated from (2004). Unfortunately, the government and the general public have
failed to modernize as quickly, refusing to consider the repatriation of any items.
During my visit to the British Museum, I had one interview with the director of
the Ethnographic Department. His interview showed that he had a firm understanding of
modern museum standards and practices. The interview gave me a better understanding
of how the museum was founded, and how history still plays out in the operation of the
museum. The museum and the English are steeped in multiple levels of traditions. The
75
tradition of protecting the world’s knowledge is a difficult tradition to change. We also
talked at great length about the issues of human remains and the changes that are
hopefully the beginning of other changes in the future.
4.4.2 The American Museum of Britain
When representing Native American culture, the American Museum of Britain
has faced many obstacles. Two of the many difficulties they have faced are due to the
lack of funding and the physical distance from Native Americans. Both of these issues
have influenced their displays and publications relating to Native Americans.
The Native American collection was housed in the basement, and began with a
diorama of well-known Native American dwellings. The final part of the display area
was split up according to regional groups, with each region represented by a subject that
typifies that area. The displays represented the Southwest are Navajo jewelry and
pottery. Each of the displays told a neutral version of history, failing to mention the
negative incidences.
There were three publications in the museum that mentioned Native Americans.
Only one led to any significant discovery about the museum’s philosophy. The exhibit
guide ‘The North American Indian’ was from an exhibit that was removed just before I
arrived at the museum. The guide was broken down into regional groups; half was used
to explain Southwest and the Plains, and then the final part was used to explain seven
other indigenous groups. The publication had generalized topics and failed to go deeper
into the finer points of those issues. They told the reader, for example, that some Native
76
American artists prefer to be known as artists first and Indians second while others
followed traditional practices. There was no discussion of why.
The formal part of the interview was very short. After the tape recorder was
turned off the director of the museum was more relaxed. The director talked at great
length about how the museum chose objects to tell stories about Native Americans. She
felt that Native American stories were embedded in the objects that they made. She also
discussed the museum’s funding issues and how that hampered their desires to update
their displays.
The American Museum of Britain was outdated on many levels. This was partly
related to funding and also due to the physical distance between the museum and Native
Americans. Unfortunately, Native American views were not always presented in this
museum. Recently, they received a grant to update their exhibition area, and even small
changes to the area could change the overall feeling of the exhibit. They could change
some of the outdated information and add more contemporary information, or include
more detail in their existing displays.
4.4.3 The Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture
The Burke Museum represented Native Americans differently. They have taken
many of the curatorial decisions away from the museum staff and allowed the Native
American community to represent themselves. The staff acted as facilitators to the
Native American community’s wishes.
77
Each of the museum’s displays informed the public of a different piece of the
story and history, which reflected the influences of the community. The topics that they
chose to talk about were language, stories, teachers, and ceremonies. This museum was
also different because it chose to represent the local Native American people, rather than
all Native Americans, a common practice in the other museums.
The main publication for this museum was the exhibit guide to ‘Pacific Voices’,
the exhibit that housed the Native American collection. The publication explained why
they chose to ask the people to tell their own story. This became the museum’s effort in
order to shift the authority out of the museum staffs’ hands and back into the community
that was being represented. The museum chose to have community informants help with
designing the display by choosing objects to go on display, writing text, program
development, and installation. This publication, unlike the other, showed how Native
Americans have a clear connection to the contemporary world as well as a firm
grounding in the past. Unfortunately, I was unable to secure an interview.
4.4.4 The Maryhill Museum of Art
At the Maryhill Museum of Art, I began by examining the ten displays that were
organized by regional groups. Each group was represented by objects from the cultural
group that made them. The displays were set up in a circular room. Each of the displays
was accented with historical photos of individuals. Also housed in the Native American
collection was a display about Lewis and Clark and the introduction of European trade
goods into the Native American economy.
78
I had a total of two interviews with officials, one was the director and one with a
guest curator to the Native Americans collection, at the Maryhill museum. The interview
with the director turned out to be the most informative because the director explained
how cultural resource laws, particularly NAGPRA, shaped the relationships between
federally funded museums and Native Americans. These laws have, according to the
director, fostered an environment of communication. The director also explained that the
Maryhill had a good working relationship with local tribes but the lack of funding
hampered the museum’s ability to update their displays. The two following interviews
were extremely brief and consisted of only side comments added to the main
conversation between the director and myself. They lent little to this study’s overall
understanding.
The museum publications were examined to determine if there was any
information pertaining to contemporary Native Americans. Unfortunately, there was no
information in the museum publications that would allude to the museum having a
working relationship with modern Native Americans.
4.5 Conclusion:
The accurate representation of Native Americans in museums is a difficult issue,
one that will continue to be discussed for many years to come. This research has
examined how cultural resource laws influence a museum’s ability to accurately
represent Native Americans. The results of this research suggest that the laws encourage
American museums to use Native American informants to gain accurate and meaningful
79
information about their cultures and objects. The laws have encouraged museum
displays that demonstrate historical and contemporary issues that affect Native
Americans. In United Kingdom museums are not subject to cultural resource laws, and
as such Native American informants are rarely used. The effect of this is museum
displays that only discuss topics on a surface level, or ones that lack contemporary issues.
Another important issue that results illuminated were the constraints that funding places
on museums when creating accurate displays. This was an excuse given by the two
smaller museums as to why they had outdated displays. However, the Maryhill Museum
still solicits input and help from Native American groups and the American Museum did
not. This demonstrates how the implementation of cultural resource laws in the United
States and the lack of them in the United Kingdom effect the representation of Native
Americans. The museums in the United States have fostered a working relationship with
Native Americans and only the publicly funded museum in the United Kingdoms worked
on a minimal basis with Native Americans. Repatriation further illuminates the power of
relationships found inside museums. These topics will be explored further in the
conclusion.
80
Chapter 5: Conclusion
Museums, like other social institutions, are continually changing and evolving.
They are influenced by many factors such as: funding, staffing, collections, source
communities, visitors, ethical issues, and, in the United States, cultural resource laws.
This research included a small number of museums and therefore the findings suggest
trends that occur in museums. Through the focus of cultural resource laws, a perspective
can be ascertained about the influence they have over a museum’s approach to how they
represent Native Americans, which will result in an evaluation of American cultural
resource laws. In the conclusion I will illuminate this issue by looking at three trends. I
will begin by examining power relationships in museums as displayed through the
interaction with visitors and source communities. Second, I will look at funding and how
it influences cultural resource laws inside of museums. Lastly, I will examine how the
repatriation of objects is related to cultural resource laws and power relationships.
The museums in this research vary in degrees of transformation from the
modernist museum to the post-modernist museum. By moving away from the modernist
phase of museum management, museum officials are becoming increasingly culturally
sensitive to diverse interest groups (Hooper-Greenhill 2000:104). In the United States
the transition has been influenced by cultural resource laws. Eilean Hooper-Greenhill
terms the ‘post-modernist museum’ as a museum that is concerned with the communities
that they serve, rather than being simply a storage facility accessible by a few elite
(2000:103). The Burke Museum is somewhere at the top of this transformation, listening
81
to a variety of interest groups and allowing them to tell their stories. Then on the other
side, museums in the United Kingdom have taken a different course because they lack
cultural resource laws that take into account the needs of source communities.
Compounding this situation even more is the example of the American Museum of
Britain which was influenced by concerns over funding.
There are several factors that can be looked at to determine where a particular
museum is in their transformation to a post-modernist museum. The first factor is how
museum officials treat various stakeholders, especially visitors and the source
communities, which reflect the power relationships inside of a museum. Source
communities are those communities whose objects and cultures are the source for what is
on display. The two museums in the United Kingdom framed Native Americans in the
context of European contact. They allowed the visitors’ needs to override all other
parties involved. In the United States, cultural resource laws have influenced a museum’s
interactions with Native Americans. The two museums in the United States are different
because of the obligatory relationship with Native Americans required by law.
5.1 Visitors and the Represented (A Discourse in Power):
Museums are continually balancing their responsibilities between those they
represent and their visitors. It is important for museums to weigh their responsibilities to
all parties involved and present the most accurate information to the public while
continuing to consider the cultural rights of those on display. This is by no means an
82
easy task and the job comes with many obstacles. The museums included in this study
are no exception.
Museums innately have power and authority over what they display. Visitors go
to museums because they expect the institution to teach them valid information (Riegel
1996:87). It begins with their outward appearance which makes a statement of their
importance and power. For example, the British Museum with its structure based on
Romanesque architecture creates a sense of importance, which leads one to believe the
information enclosed is valuable and true. The balancing act between visitors and source
communities can become unbalanced. This can occur when a museum prioritizes visitors
and the funding they generate over other concerns. Cultural resource laws have helped to
balance this relationship in museums in the United States. Although this is not the only
issue, it reminds museum officials that they have a responsibility to those they represent
as well as to the visitors. In the following section, I examine how museums in the United
Kingdom tend to focus more on the visitors’ needs, while museums in the United States
focus more on the relationship between themselves and source communities. The
relationship in the United States fosters a better understanding of Native American
worldviews, which benefits museum patrons and source communities.
5.1.1 The Visitor:
A majority of museums are the result of colonialist interactions with other
cultures. However, despite the colonialist roots of museums, not all museums continue to
83
be influenced by this history. There are plenty of museums that work diligently to
include source communities in exhibit creation and interpretation (Nason 2000:29).
Museums tell visitors about themselves and their nations. They shape the way
people view the world and others in it. “Museums solidify culture; endow it with
tangibility, in a way few other things do” (Dubin 1999:3). Therefore, it is the
responsibility of the museum to present the most accurate information to those seeking
knowledge behind their doors. Unfortunately, British collections were gathered in an
effort to glorify the British nation, and they say more about those who collected them
than the cultures they came from (Dubin 1999:5).
The two museums in the United Kingdom had a tendency to focus on the visitors’
needs. For example, the American Museum of Britain made an attempt to display
American culture; it continually connected its displays back to English or European
peoples. This began with the tour of the historical rooms, which began with supposed
‘English colonist homes’ and continued into the displays representing Native Americans.
The first information about Native Americans was filtered through the context of
European exploration and the story of Pocahontas. Native Americans and everyone on
the North American continent were treated the same, but they were only important to
visitors because of their connection to Europe.
The British Museum also felt compelled to take into account visitors’ experiences
over those of source communities. The director of the Department of Ethnography stated
that it was important to relate exhibits to visitors’ understanding so that it was meaningful
84
to them. The British Museum chose to connect its exhibits to European expansion and
European contact (Director of Ethnographic Department 2004).
When focusing on visitors’ needs, a museum has a tendency to lose sight of issues
that surround source communities, thereby presenting only part of the story. This
hampers their ability to understand contemporary issues, and how it relates to Native
American identity (Director of Ethnographic Department 2004). Museums are not just
representing objects. More importantly they represent the people who made the objects.
The objects that are used to represent Native Americans were appropriated by colonial
agents, and the visitor is told little about the person who made the object. “We learn
much about Western constructions but little about those who were separated from the
objects appropriated by Westerners” (Cole 1985,Xi).
Like structuralism, museum curators employ universals, when selecting objects to
represent other peoples on display. Museums use objects to tell a story about a particular
culture. ‘Cultural objectification’ happens when a culture’s characteristics are imposed
upon an object (Handler 1988:14). The objectification rationalizes the study of those
cultures. All museums objectify other cultures to varying degrees. Native Americans
have a viable living culture with unique issues and views that museum officials should be
aware of and consider when creating displays about them. The British Museum might
consider itself as the protectors of world culture but this is contradictory because of their
lack of simple understanding of central issues facing Native Americans, such as land use
issues.
85
The two museums in the United Kingdom lump all Native Americans into one
category, ‘Indigenous’, for the benefit of the visitor. Indigenous groups from around the
world have some similarities, but also have a larger number of variations. Too long have
Native Americans been lumped into a single entity. The British Museum, like the
American Museum of Britain and the Maryhill Museum of Art, group Native Americans
into regional groups, which is similar to grouping them together as Indigenous. This act
devalues their unique traditions and heritage.
All of this reflects Levi-Strauss’s theory of binary opposition. This is the notion
that people have an underlying desire to categorize people and to create an ‘us and them’
situation. This overshadows the important variations between all people, not only the
variety of tribes. Westerners categorize people in an effort to understand themselves and
others better. The simple act of separating people into cultural groups is a reflection of
our nature to create binary opposites (Levi-Strauss 1945:364). By lumping Native
Americans together it detracts from understanding the vast differences between Native
American tribes, which ultimately does a disservice to visitors and to source
communities.
Although it is important to focus on the visitors’ experiences it is also important
to understand the desires of source communities. Museums can create better
opportunities to understand those they represent by including the source communities’
desires and worldviews in the creation of their displays. By representing groups such as
Native Americans appropriately it will in turn create a better experience for the visitor.
This is only achieved by creating a situation that fosters more cross-cultural
86
communication. Therefore, the international community, particularly the United
Kingdom, would greatly benefit by implementing laws that would protect cultural
resources of source communities and encourage meaningful communication.
5.1.2 The Represented:
Changing ideals in museums, particularly those in the United States, are shifting
the focus to those who are represented (Native Americans) rather than just the visitor,
which has caused a shift in the power structure.
“If museums wish to become socially inclusive, alternative perspectives
need to be recognized, acknowledged, and made both visible and audible”
(Hooper-Greenhill 2000:7).
The National Museum of American Indian, located in Washington DC, is at the forefront
of the implementation of Native American philosophies into the care and representation
of their collections (Rosoff 2003:73). Native Americans act as consultants in every phase
of collection management. After the passage of NAGPRA, human remains and sacred
items in the collection were restored in a culturally sensitive manner with regard to the
wishes of individual tribes.
“The Human Remains Vault is smudged with a mixture of tobacco, sage,
sweet grass, and cedar every week; drawers containing sacred materials such as
bundles have been flagged so that people know where this material is and can
show it proper respect; during the full moon, the sacred Crow objects in The
Plains vault are smudged with sage” (Rosoff 2003:73).
Museums have shifted their focus to include more collaborative curatorial practices
because of the reflexive post-modernist movement inside the fields of social science
(Phillips 2003:158). The Maryhill museum also has changed their curatorial practices
87
because of cultural resource laws. The director of the Maryhill Museum of Art stated that
cultural resource laws changed their museum’s interaction with Native Americans:
“The only change is that it gave us an opportunity to get to know more
about and to meet with some of the tribes whose pieces we hold in trust at
Maryhill… it helps us make sure the stories are told from a Native American
point of view. It also helps us care for the materials in our museum according to
standards that have been developed as the Native peoples have found their voice
about items in non-Native museums” (March 2006).
There is a raised awareness that “earlier, objectifying traditions of material culture
display have supported colonial and neo-colonial power relations” (Phillips 2003:158).
Although laws such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act do
not directly require museums to respect Native American wishes, mutual understanding
has become a welcome addition.
Just like the National Museum of the American Indian, the Burke Museum of
Natural History and Culture has worked to change the power structure inside of the
museum’s newest exhibit. They collaborated with Native Americans in every phase of
creating the display with curators acting as facilitators to the wishes of the Native
representatives (Kahn 1998). Working with Native Americans opens up discussions of
topics once silent or overlooked, making “formerly invisible histories visible” (HooperGreenhill 2000:19).
Instead of focusing on the objects and how they relate to the visitors, some
museums are focusing on how they can become more accessible and usable to Native
American communities.
“Academically trained curators, for example, perceived values in objects
based on Western scientific categories of knowledge, Western post-Renaissance
88
concepts of aesthetics, and a point of view that may assign significant terms of
type specimen…Native American museum specialists, by contrast, regard objects
in a more direct and personalized manner that holistically connects objects to each
other and to broader perception of community meanings and cultural values”
(Nason 2000:40).
The museum of the future “needs to include sufficient room for private viewing,
discussion, and ceremonial activities by groups of people” (Peers 2003:22), including
Native Americans.
Valuable cultural information can be ascertained when museums facilitate Native
American involvement with their collections. A deeper understanding of the collection
and how to traditionally care for the collection is the ultimate goal of many top American
Museums, which has “spurred to a significant degree by repatriation legislation and its
demands for museum-Native American community consultation” (Nason 2000:41). This
shift is related to another important factor, “the evolving discourses of human rights”
(Phillips 2003:158). The government, influenced by the human rights movement,
changed the governance of cultural property. Laws, like NAGPRA, allow tribes to take a
dominant role when dealing with their cultural items. For example, tribes are acting as
their own historical preservation offices and as Smithsonian designated repositories,
further shifting the advisory role out of the hands of non-natives.
Another example of how NAGPRA allowed tribes to take a dominant role
occurred in Oct. 2006, when a First Nations group in Canada sought to have an item
repatriated from the Burke Museum. The item was a stone that came from the
T’Xwelalse nation of British Columbia. Unfortunately, laws like NAGPRA do not apply
to tribal groups outside the United States. The director of the museum stated, “as a public
89
trust, the museum is unable to return any of its collections without an explicit legal
mandate” (2006). However, because it does apply to federal tribes in the United States,
the T’Xwelalse nation collaborated with the Nooksack Indian tribe, who claimed the
stone as an ‘object of cultural patrimony’ under NAGPRA and then returned it to the
T’Xwelalse tribe. The director of the museum commented during the repatriation
ceremony:
“The cooperation between the Burke and these two tribes across
international borders is an enormous achievement and a fine model for museum
and Native relations everywhere” (2006).
Not only does NAGPRA make possible the return of important cultural items to Native
Americans, it facilitates a cross-cultural communication between a variety of groups.
5.2 Funding:
Funding was given as an explanation for why displays were outdated for some
museums. In order to compare the effects of funding verses the effects of cultural
resource law on the representation of Native Americans, one must study the relationship
between museums that have public funding and those who are funded privately and
examine the way each of them represent Native Americans. Funding in museums can
take precedence over other goals. Museums are constrained by their economic viability
and their varying responsibilities to visitors. However, funding is not always a valid
excuse for the lack of accurate representation.
This research looked at two museums in the United States and two in the United
Kingdom. Each country was represented by a federally funded museum and private
90
institution with outside funding sources. The Burke Museum of Natural History and
Culture is housed in a federal and state funded institution where it derives much of its
financial support. The Maryhill Museum of Art is a private museum, which receives
funding from outside sources. The British Museum, like the Burke, is a federally funded
institution. The American Museum, on the other hand is a private museum that receives
outside funding.
5.2.1 United State Museums:
The Burke Museum did not seem to have funding issues. They had up to-date
displays focusing on a holistic view of Native Americans, implementing them in the
creation of the displays. On the other hand, funding was a factor for the Maryhill
Museum of Art. They had to choose between changing their exhibits frequently to attract
more visitors, and developing programs that showcase local Native American tribes
(Director of Maryhill 2006).
5.2.2 United Kingdom Museums:
The British Museum, also federally funded, had displays dealing with Native
Americans. While funding was not an issue, they only minimally consulted with Native
Americans on objects found in the displays. They did not use source communities to
their fullest potential or to communicate their worldview; instead curators chose what
would be presented to the public. Funding was also a factor for The American Museum
of Britain. Their displays were outdated because of a lack of funding, and they did not
consult with Native Americans. Instead, they chose to use easily accessible and therefore
91
inexpensive non-natives to represent Native American way of life as seen in their English
drum group. I recently found out that they have received a grant to change some of their
exhibit space, which will include the Native American collection.
Funding is an issue when representing Native Americans, but it is not the entire
cause for the lack of communication between museums and Native Americans. If
funding were the only limitation to accurate representation, the British Museum would be
more culturally accurate, or have a more complete picture of Native American
worldviews. Cultural resource management laws in the United States are a determining
factor in terms of how museums represent Native Americans. Richard W. Hill states that:
“Today’s museums have begun to change the way they do business with
Indians. There is more collaboration with Indians and, as a result, exhibitions are
beginning to reflect more of the beliefs and values of the Indians themselves.
Certainly the Native Americans Graves Protection and Repatriation Act has had
an impact on this. Museums have been forced to rethink their relationship with
Indians and to reassess their knowledge of their own collections. Objects are
being reviewed to determine whether they are needed for Native rituals, proper to
exhibit, or candidates for repatriation” (Hill 2000:104).
Unfortunately, international museums do not have to adhere to the same standards as
museums in the United States. Again, funding is intrinsically related to the power
structure that is set up inside of museums. Visitors often have the power to dictate a
direction that a museum will follow because of the revenue they generate.
5.3 Repatriation and the Preservers of World Culture:
Another trend that is evident during the discussion of this research is repatriation,
which reflects the power struggles that occur in museums. Museums in the United States
work under repatriation laws that attempt to equalize the unequal power relationship that
92
they have with Native Americans. In the United Kingdom, no repatriation laws exist and
the power structure is unbalanced away from Native Americans and other source
communities. Richard West, founding director of the National Museum of the American
Indian, discusses this issue in his article ‘A New Idea of Ourselves: The Changing
Presentation of the American Indian’.
“This sense of continuum extends to a belief in the links between Native
peoples and collections of their material culture in a number of the world’s great
museums. Under U.S. law, the reality of that link can mean that museums must
return some of their holdings to Native communities” (West 1999:99).
However, repatriation of objects and human remains internationally is a difficult issue
that will continue to be fought by indigenous groups. The repatriation of an item is to
admit to the wrong doings of its collectors. The colonization and exploitation of third
world countries continues to be acceptable because it has been acceptable for so long. In
2005 Zahi Hawass, Egypt’s chief archaeologist, made Egypt’s wishes known to the world
by requesting five of its most prized possessions to be returned. His request included the
Rosetta Stone, currently housed in the British Museum. The Museum’s spokeswoman
said that to give such an object back would be a disappointment to millions of visitors
who come to see the stone each year (Sydney Morning Herald 2005). This shows that the
British Museum gives more priority to its visitors rather than the source communities.
Cultural resource laws have changed the way that museums in the United States
look at Native Americans. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
has become a model for other groups to negotiate for themselves the return of their own
cultural treasures. Further still, it can be used to change the international community’s
policies when dealing with the return of objects of important cultural heritage or at least
93
the display of such items. For example, international laws facilitate the changing
representation of indigenous people, but only when countries choose to partake of their
offerings.
Other countries, such as Australia, have recognized the importance of hearing and
heeding aboriginal concerns and requests. In 1978, recommendations from a UNESCO
regional seminar led to a collaboration between Australian Aboriginals and the Australian
Museum.
“Indigenous delegates claimed the right of Aboriginal people to influence
the management of object used to represent their communities and the
presentation of their knowledge and practice in exhibitions. They focused on the
need for the employment of Aboriginal staff to manage Aboriginal collections and
greater indigenous involvement in the development of exhibition and education
programs, and they raised concerns about the management of secret/sacred or
restrictive objects and the management and reburial of collections of Aboriginal
human remains” (Bolton 2003:45).
UNESCO, like NAGPRA, has acted to create a better understanding between indigenous
and non-indigenous people by shifting the way that museums represent indigenous
peoples from around the world.
Historically, museums were seen as great preservers of culture. This might have
been true in the past but many of the cultures that museums were supposedly preserving
are now capable of doing it themselves. Many times, the only reason why they could not
do it in the past was because of the oppressive governments that occupied or colonized
their homelands. NAGPRA is changing this relationship between Native Americans and
United States museums. In comparison one director of The British Museum stated that:
“The British Museum is an important part of the cultural heritage of the
whole world; as it has existed for 225 years it has become a universal museum
94
and has safeguarded material which would otherwise have been destroyed or
dispersed…If one destroyed the British Museum then one would be destroying a
center of world culture” (Sir David Wilson 1989).
This view is still strongly upheld by the current administration. The current web page of
The British Museum makes a similar claim stating, “the museum exists to illuminate the
histories of cultures for the benefit of present and future generations” (2006). The British
Museum has altered some of its practices. It now consults with Native Americans,
although it is on a minimal basis. Old ideas hold on and play out in present day
procedures.
The British Museum prides itself as the protectors of the world’s culture and that
the objects they are holding are objects that would have been destroyed had they not
rescued them. This is not always the case. For instance, one of the most famous legal
actions against the British government came from the request from the Greeks for the
return of the Elgin Marbles. The Marbles were removed in 1801 by Lord Elgin, under
illegal terms according to the Greek government (Greenfield 1996:42-45). Ethically, it
seems only logical that the Elgin Marbles should be returned. Greece is quite stable and
capable of protecting their heritage. International cultural heritage laws could shift the
dialogue to include all concerned parties. In reality, the Elgin Marbles or the Rosetta
Stone would not be repatriated under current United States laws. Even though we have
made significant strides to give legal rights to Native American communities, the United
States has not offered the same rights to other outside communities. Some museum
officials even suggest that museums should move toward a cultural resource management
95
paradigm, a paradigm in which all parties are consulted in order to make the best
decisions about the world’s cultural heritage (Longenecker & Stapp 2005:180-182).
5.4 Conclusion:
Historically, museums were not institutions that were found in traditional Native
American society.
“The Indians may have retained heirlooms; they did not collect Indian
artifacts… The museum, as an institution dedicated to acquisition, exhibition, and
preservation, was a European phenomenon” (Cole 1995:311).
In the past, museums reflected colonial interactions with Indigenous communities and
exhibited the uneven power relationship with the dominant society. Museums need to
find their place in a world that is ever expanding. They need to endeavor to be
meaningful to non-Westerners as well as Westerners. Cultural resource laws in the
United States act as one of the missing links between Native Americans and museums.
Due in part to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other
cultural resource laws in the United States; museums have changed their representational
practices of Native Americans. Meaningful communication between Native Americans
and museums in the United States is now a possibility. The laws foster a situation where
those being displayed in museums have an opportunity to control what information is
presented to the public and what information should be off limits because of its sacred or
sensitive nature.
Native American involvement in the museum is also a factor that has altered the
way museums represent Native Americans and their worldviews. Cultural resource laws
96
facilitate Native Americans in their efforts to bridge the communication barrier. Native
Americans in the United States have challenged the stereotypical views imposed upon
them by shaping cultural resource laws. The passage of NAGPRA and other laws like it
have created a unique situation that facilitates cross-cultural communication, changing
the relationship between museums and Native Americans.
The overriding theme in this research is that there is an underlying power
structure that is integrated into museums. As researchers we are so accustomed to seeing
these power relationships that we have a difficult time recognizing them. Just the fact
that we give some people the power to represent others in a museum exemplifies the
uneven relationship between cultures within our own country. Going to the United
Kingdom helped me see this type of relationship in our own country. Thanks in part to
cultural resource laws; the shift in power is changing. This research shows that it has not
changed completely but it has begun to change.
It is difficult to delineate the true effects that cultural resource laws such as the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act have had on the representation
of Native Americans in museums. I have looked at the way that museums have changed
after the inception of NAGPRA. One of the most important things that have developed
because of this law and other like it is the beginning of meaningful cross-cultural
communication between museum officials and Native Americans. Although some
museums in the United States, such as The Burke Museum of Natural History and
Culture, are further along the developmental lines towards a more culturally sensitive
museum, others are still working on developing a more meaningful relationship with
97
Native Tribes. It is hard to make generalizations within the United States; each museum
is in a very different state of evolution. Yet they are all changing and it is due in part to
the passage of cultural resource laws. NAGPRA has helped to reestablish Native
Americans’ legal authority over their culture. This is just the beginning of a new
paradigm of cooperation, self-determination, and representation.
98
REFERENCES CITED
Ames, M.
1995
Bernard, R.
2001
Are Changing Representations of First Peoples in Canadian Museums and
Galleries: Changing the Curatorial Prerogative? In Changing the
American Indian, edited by R. West, pp.76-77. University of Washington
Press, Washington, D.C.
Research Methods in Anthropology. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, Ca.
Cole, Douglas
1998 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest Coast Artifacts. University
of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.
Conaty, Gerald T.
2003 Glenbow’s Blackfoot Gallery: Working Towards Coexistence. In
Museums and Source Communities, edited by Alison K. Brown, and
Laura Peers, pp.20-27. Routledge Press, New York, NY.
D’Andrade, R.
1995 Moral Models in Anthropology. In Anthropological Theory, edited by R.
McGee, pp.609-626. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Department of the Interior
1996 Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. Federal Register, Washington, D.C.
Douglas, M.
1966
Dubin, S.
1999
External Boundaries. In Anthropological Theory. edited by R. McGee,
pp.526-535. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Displays of Power. University Press, New York, NY.
Erickson, P. & Murphy, L.
2003 A History of Anthropological Theory. Broadview Press, Ontario, Canada.
Fabin, J.
1983
Time And The Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Objects. University
Press, New York, NY.
99
Farrer, Claire R.
1994 Who Owns The World? An Anthropological Perspective On Public Law.
Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society. Vol. 4, pp.317-327.
Geertz, C.
1973
Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight. In Anthropological Theory,
edited by R. McGee, pp.553-574. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Greenfield, J.
1989 The Return of Cultural Treasures. University Press, Cambridge, England.
Gutting, Gary
2004 Foucault: A Very Short Introduction. University Press, Oxford, NY.
Handler, Richard
1988 Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Harlan, B.
1996
Museums Perspectives from Within: A Native View. In Mending the
Circle: A Native American Repatriation Guide. The American Indian
Ritual Object foundation, New York, NY.
Hill, Richard
1999 Indian Cabinet of Curiosity. In the Changing Presentation of the American
Indian, edited by R. West. Pp.15-28. University of Washington Press,
Washington, D.C.
Hopper-Greenhill, Eilean
2000 Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. Routledge Press,
London, England.
Kahn, Miriam
1998 Pacific Voices: Celebrating the Worlds Within Our Community. The
Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, Seattle, WA.
Keesing, R.
1987
Anthropology as Interpretive Quest. In Current Anthropology. Vol. 28,
pp.161-176.
King, J.C.H.
n.d.
Native American Art, Irish American Trade: The Stonyhurst Mullanpy
Collection. The British Museum, London, England.
100
Kelm, Bonnie
1993 Museums as Interpreters of Culture. In Journal of
Arts Management, Law and Society. Vol. 23, pp.127-136.
Longgenecker, J. & Stapp, D.
2005 Conflicts Between American Indians and Archaeologist. In Indigenous
Archaeologies, edited by C. Smith & H. Wobst, pp.171-185. Routledge
Press, New York, NY.
Maurer, F.
2000
Presenting the American Indian: From Europe To America. In the
Changing Presentation of the American Indian, edited by R. West, pp.1528. University of Washington Press, Washington, D.C.
McGee, R. & Warms, R.
2003 Anthropological Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Milner, G.
2004 Moundbuilders. Thames & Hudson Ltd, London, England.
Nason, James
2000 The Unidimensoional Indian in the Disembodied Local Past. In The
Changing Presentation of the American Indian, edited by R. West, pp.2946. University of Washington Press, Washington, D.C.
Nelly, Sharlotte & Oswalt, Wendell
1999 This Land Was There’s: A Study of Native Americans. Mayfield
Publishing Company, Los Angles, Ca.
Nicks, Trudy
2003 Introduction. In Museums and Source Communities, Edited by Alison K.
Brown, and Laura Peers, pp.20-27. Routledge Pres, New York, NY.
Peers, L.
2003
Strands Which Refuse to be Braided: Beatrice Blockwood’s Ojibwa
Collection at the Pitt Rivers Museum. In Journal of Material Culture, Vol.
8, pp.75-96.
Phillips, Ruth
1998 Trading Identities. University of Washington Press, London, England.
101
Plez
1998
Pacific Voices, Celebrating the Worlds Within Our Community. The
Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, Seattle, WA.
1996
Into the Heart of Irony: Ethnographic Exhibitions And the Politics of
Difference. In Theorizing Museums, edited by Sharon MacDonald &
Gordon Fyfe, pp.70-104. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA.
Riegel
Renato, Rosaldo
1989 ef and a Headhunter’s Rage. In Anthropological Theory, edited by R.
McGee & Richard Warms, pp.579-592. McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Rosoff, Nancy
1999 Integrating Native Views Into Museum Procedures: Hope and Practice at
the National Museum of American Indian. In Museums and Source
Communities, edited by L. Reevs & A. Brown, pp.73-76. Routledge,
London, England.
Schneider, M.
1995 Undroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects,
accessed via the web http://ww.city.ac.uk.html (10 May, 2004).
Smith, Scott
n.d.
The Scandal of Fake Indian Crafts: Cowboys and Indians. Accessed via
the web, http://www.nativenet.com (20 April, 2005).
Spalding, Julian
2002 The Poetic Museum. Prestel-Verlag Publishing Co, London, England.
Strauss, Levi
1963 Structural Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology. In
Anthropological Theory, edited by R. McGee, pp.347-362. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Strickland, Rennerd
1997 to’s Revenge. University of New Mexico Press, Albercurcie, New
Mexico.
Tesner, Linda
n.d.
Maryhill Museum of Art. Argcus Publishing, Portland, OR.
102
Trope, Jack
1996
Turner, V.
1967
Mending The Circle: A Native American Repatriation Guide. American
Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation, New York, NY.
Symbols in Nedembu Ritual. In Anthropological Theory, edited by R.
McGee, pp.536-553. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
United Kingdom
1939 Exports and Customs Power Act. Accessed via the Web,
http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts(1 November, 2005).
United Kingdom
1963 British Museum Act. Accessed via the web,
http://www.thebritish,iseim.ac.uk/corporate/ (1 November, 2005).
United Nations
1954 The Hague Convention. Accessed via the web, http://www.un.org (5
May,2005).
United Nations
1970 The Convention of the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Acced
via the web, http://unesco.org (1 November, 2005).
United Nations
1995 The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
National Heritage. Accessed via the web, http://www.unidroit.org (5 June,
2004).
Unknown
2005
Unknown
n.d.
Unknown
n.d.
Egypt Wants its Museum Treasures Back. Sydney Morning Herald, June
14, 2005.
Enlightenment: Carry on Collecting. The British Museum, London,
England.
Enlightenment: Gallery Guide. The British Museum, London, England.
103
Unknown
n.d.
Unknown
n.d.
Unknown
n.d.
Unknown
n.d.
Unknown
n.d.
Unknown
n.d.
West, R.
1999
Enlightenment: Eighteenth Century to E-bay. The British Museum,
London, England.
Be Maryhill Museum’s Corps of Discovery. The Maryhill Museum of Art,
Goldendale, Washington.
Be Maryhill Museum’s Cultural Expert. The Maryhill Museum of Art,
Goldendale, Washington.
Be Maryhill Museum’s sculpture Expert. The Maryhill Museum of Art,
Goldendale, Washington.
Cornhusk Bags of the Plateau Indians. The Maryhill Museum of Art,
Goldendale, Washington.
Celebrating the Repatriation of the Stone T’xwelatse at the Burke
Museum. The Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture, accessed via
the web, http://www.washington.edu/burkemusuem (5 November, 2006).
Changing Presentation of the American Indian. University of Washington
Press, Washington, D.C.
Willson, David
1989 British Museum: Purpose and Politics. British
Ltd, London, England.
Museum Publication
Wood, Karenne
2000 Personal Communication. Email to the Author. (15 August 2004).
104
APPENDICES
105
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. When was this museum first created? Where did the Native American
collection come from? Was there a significant source for the collection?
2. In your opinion what is an accurate representation of Native Americans in
regards to museums?
3. Can you think of a time when you have seen an inaccurate representation of
Native Americans? When? Where?
4. What factors would this museum explore when creating a museum display
about Native Americans?
5. What research material dose the museum have available for curators when
exploring Native Americans? Dose the public have access to this material?
6. How many times in the past five years have the displays representing Native
Americans changed? How have they changed?
7. Does your museum have a working relationship with any Native American
tribes or groups? If so explain.
8. Has the museum had a Native American representative come and advise the
museum on its collections? Pleas explain.
9. How would your describe your museum’s relationship with educating the
public about Native Americans? Please describe any programs or outreach to the public
that the museum sponsors.
106
10. What present of the total Native American artifacts that the museum holds is
on display for the public? How often is it rotated? Is there ever an opportunity for the
public to see other items that they might be interested in that is not on display?
11. Are there any laws that dictate how people are represented in the United
Kingdom? Are there governmental or international laws that might influence the
representation of Native Americans?
12. Can you tell me about any affiliations that museum has with other museum in
the United States? How has this helped/ or not helped the museum when dealing with
native American Artifacts?
13. Are indigenous cultures of the United States represented differently than the
other cultures presented in the museum?
14. Can you tell me about the issue of human remains being dealt with in your
government? Has your museum repatriated any human remains?
15. Can you tell me about some of the current research the museum is working on
in regards to the Native American collection? What is some of the planed future
research?